Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => SSPX Resistance Chapels => Topic started by: isoquote on December 13, 2022, 07:06:57 AM
-
Our opinion is that you must follow God’s lead on this one. When (not if) you and you family’s Faith is being undermined and destroyed by staying inside the SSPX then you must be prepared to lead your family and leave. We should be prepared to travel, to hunt out a Mass.
Priests will come to serve those who NEED the sacraments - that is how the SSPX get their emergency faculties and that is how Resistance priests obtain their faculties. If all you can offer them is a room in your house, or a site demountable on a piece of land that is all that you will need. You can build up the rest to offer glory to God later… I would advise that you build up a loyalty to a Mass centre and have a hierarchy in your mind of what you will and will not compromise on (in terms of pastoral advise and on doctrine) and reassess as the years creak on by.
We have our recusant persecution as example on how to behave. They had a valid TLM offered by validly ordained priests - the martyrs did not assist at Masses offered by these Henrican priests who served the old and the new regime, in Britain there were faithful who sat both sides of the fence - THEY did not save their souls (or the souls of those they had authority over!) by going to these insulting Masses. (Just google Lord Stourton 1596(ish) and Mortal Sin!)
The main thing is Keep Holy the Sabbath because that is God’s command, going to Mass is a man made rule of the Church and if the Church cannot provide an uncompromised Mass that is not your fault.
Stay strong - hold each other up!
In Him
Isoquote
-
Very good advice.
We are all losing our (good) sense of independence and initiative in this regard. Because we are too willing to compromise.
There are clergy willing to travel and not sit in their corner.
Message me anyone who wants to know more.
-
The main thing is Keep Holy the Sabbath because that is God’s command, going to Mass is a man made rule of the Church and if the Church cannot provide an uncompromised Mass that is not your fault.
Stay strong - hold each other up!
In Him
Isoquote
Are you sure that the Mass is a man-made rule of the Church? Is that what Catholics have always believed? The Mass began with the Apostles, so how can it be man-made?
-
Are you sure that the Mass is a man-made rule of the Church? Is that what Catholics have always believed? The Mass began with the Apostles, so how can it be man-made?
The OP means because the Church made assisting at Mass on Sunday / Holy Days obligatory under pain of mortal sin, the Church must provide the Mass for you. If She has not provided the Mass for you, then you are freed from the obligation to go to Mass.
-
The OP means because the Church made assisting at Mass on Sunday / Holy Days obligatory under pain of mortal sin, the Church must provide the Mass for you. If She has not provided the Mass for you, then you are freed from the obligation to go to Mass.
Are you sure that going to Mass is a man-made rule? Is it then just a matter of discipline and nothing else?
-
Are you sure that going to Mass is a man-made rule?
Man-made in the sense that it is a law established by the Church so it is Church Law, not Divine Law. Keeping the Sabbath Day holy is Divine Law.
-
Man-made in the sense that it is a law established by the Church so it is Church Law, not Divine Law. Keeping the Sabbath Day holy is Divine Law.
So it's just a matter of a disciplinary rule, and nothing else?
-
So it's just a matter of a disciplinary rule, and nothing else?
Yes, except this disciplinary rule has a mortal sin attached to it.
-
Yes, except this disciplinary rule has a mortal sin attached to it.
In my opinion, we cannot say that this is a "disciplinary rule, and nothing else".
It is more like an extension of the third commandment.
The five commandments of the Church are more than disciplinary rules. They are more like the minimum you need to do in order to have a spiritual life.
-
In my opinion, we cannot say that this is a "disciplinary rule, and nothing else".
It is more like an extension of the third commandment.
The five commandments of the Church are more than disciplinary rules. They are more like the minimum you need to do in order to have a spiritual life.
Yes, well put. Either way, if there is a Mass we can get to within a reasonable distance, then we are obligated under pain of mortal sin to go to it. This applies to the True Mass, not the new jazz.
-
In my opinion, we cannot say that this is a "disciplinary rule, and nothing else".
It is more like an extension of the third commandment.
The five commandments of the Church are more than disciplinary rules. They are more like the minimum you need to do in order to have a spiritual life.
Thank you. Well said.
-
Yes, well put. Either way, if there is a Mass we can get to within a reasonable distance, then we are obligated under pain of mortal sin to go to it. This applies to the True Mass, not the new jazz.
So let’s say a “bishop” Pfeiffer were to set up a mass center next door to your house and there were no other mass centers within a reasonable distance, you are obligated to go to his? I think not.
-
So let’s say a “bishop” Pfeiffer were to set up a mass center next door to your house and there were no other mass centers within a reasonable distance, you are obligated to go to his? I think not.
I think so. We can go to him for confession and Mass. Even if he's not a bishop He is still a priest and the Mass *is* right next door to your house. We do not have to receive communion except once a year and can leave for the sermon. Even if you sit in the back and do your part you will have fulfilled your obligation.
-
I think so. We can go to him for confession and Mass. Even if he's not a bishop He is still a priest and the Mass *is* right next door to your house. We do not have to receive communion except once a year and can leave for the sermon. Even if you sit in the back and do your part you will have fulfilled your obligation.
So you are obligated to go to a Mass celebrated by a man who confers doubtful sacraments? He is a real priest, but a doubtful bishop.
He allegedly allows his lay supporters to practice occult rites.
What about his preaching? Is it free from error?
Using this logic, we would be obliged to attend an indult mass, if it is celebrated by a valid priest.
This doesn't sound right to me at all.
-
I think so. We can go to him for confession and Mass. Even if he's not a bishop He is still a priest and the Mass *is* right next door to your house. We do not have to receive communion except once a year and can leave for the sermon. Even if you sit in the back and do your part you will have fulfilled your obligation.
Who sent him? Who gave him the authority to set up a chapel? The Church didn’t set up that chapel, he did by his own volition. You are only obliged to go to a mass that the Church Herself authorizes.
-
So you are obligated to go to a Mass celebrated by a man who confers doubtful sacraments? He is a real priest, but a doubtful bishop.
He allegedly allows his lay supporters to practice occult rites.
What about his preaching? Is it free from error?
Using this logic, we would be obliged to attend an indult mass, if it is celebrated by a valid priest.
This doesn't sound right to me at all.
It doesn’t sound right to you because your Catholic sense is kicking in. 🙂
-
So you are obligated to go to a Mass celebrated by a man who confers doubtful sacraments?
I think +Williamson said the sacraments are valid.
-
I think +Williamson said the sacraments are valid.
Fr. Pfeiffer's episcopal consecration was long discussed here on this board when it took place.
The consesus was that it was doubtful, if I remember correctly.
It would be wise to revisit that thread if you are seriously considering going to Fr. Pfeiffer's to receive the sacraments.
About Bp. Williamson, I have never seem him disapproving the doubtful Novus Ordos priests who were admitted to the SSPX without a conditional ordination, so, unfortunately, his opinion on the validity of sacraments must be considered with great caution.
-
Who sent him? Who gave him the authority to set up a chapel? The Church didn’t set up that chapel, he did by his own volition. You are only obliged to go to a mass that the Church Herself authorizes.
hmmm :confused: ... food for thought. Since technically no Traditional chapel has canonical recognition and authorization, does this mean Trad Catholics are not technically / legally obliged to assist at those Masses on Sundays?
-
So you are obligated to go to a Mass celebrated by a man who confers doubtful sacraments? He is a real priest, but a doubtful bishop.
He allegedly allows his lay supporters to practice occult rites.
What about his preaching? Is it free from error?
Using this logic, we would be obliged to attend an indult mass, if it is celebrated by a valid priest.
This doesn't sound right to me at all.
He is a valid priest, why do you say his sacraments are doubtful?
It is tragic but too bad for him and his supporters.
Walk out when he starts his sermon. Very, very easy to do. I've done it enough times in the early days of this crisis to tell you it is very easy, almost too easy to do.
No, I always avoid all things NO, that includes the NO's indult.
It does not sound right because in this age of "the wild west" of traditionalists, necessity dictates that we be judge and jury on everything, but the law of the Church still obliges us under pain of mortal sin to get to Mass if there is one we can get to. We have no choice in this. Whatever “bishop” Pfeiffer is or is not, he still is certainly a validly ordained priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice that we are obligated, under pain of mortal sin to attend.
-
Who sent him? Who gave him the authority to set up a chapel? The Church didn’t set up that chapel, he did by his own volition. You are only obliged to go to a mass that the Church Herself authorizes.
He was ordained in Winona in 1994 so his ordination is valid, and he was sent by the same authority that sends all trad priests - that's a whole other discussion I think.
-
Fr. Pfeiffer's episcopal consecration was long discussed here on this board when it took place.
The consesus was that it was doubtful, if I remember correctly.
It would be wise to revisit that thread if you are seriously considering going to Fr. Pfeiffer's to receive the sacraments.
About Bp. Williamson, I have never seem him disapproving the doubtful Novus Ordos priests who were admitted to the SSPX without a conditional ordination, so, unfortunately, his opinion on the validity of sacraments must be considered with great caution.
Personally, I doubt he is a bishop, but if he is a bishop he is in big trouble with Our Lord - that's my opinion. But we can and must get to Mass to fulfill our obligation to the Church or we sin. Too many trads do not take this obligation as serious as they should imo. My opinion remains, I will stick with the law of the Church and attend his Mass if that was all I had. I would not recommend listening to his council in confession unless it was soundly Catholic, but I would go to get absolution from him - that's what matters.
We do not need to receive his communion, that obligation is for us to receive communion once a year - or we commit a mortal sin, that's another of the Church's laws. We're supposed to do what we can to abide by her laws whenever we can, and in this case of QVD's scenario, we can.
-
He is a valid priest, why do you say his sacraments are doubtful?
...
We have no choice in this. Whatever “bishop” Pfeiffer is or is not, he still is certainly a validly ordained priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice that we are obligated, under pain of mortal sin to attend.
Well, his Mass is certainly valid, but not so sure about those offered by "priests" that he might ordain, or other people with doubtful orders that he's been known to parade through Boston.
I have no issues with the validity of the +Thuc line, though there is a weak link in Bishop Webster's priestly lineage (there's a docuмent indicating that too was resolved), but the first attempt by +Webster to consecrated Fr. Pfeiffer was clearly invalid (not even just doubtful). They claim it was redone conditionally later, but we have only their word for it, and the credibility of their assessment that the second attempt was valid is undermined by their claims that the first one was valid.
-
About Bp. Williamson, I have never seen him disapproving the doubtful Novus Ordos priests who were admitted to the SSPX without a conditional ordination, so, unfortunately, his opinion on the validity of sacraments must be considered with great caution.
I agree and my statement was done partly in jest. What seems to be happening is a complete reversal of logic - one can attend the New Order Bastard Service, which is valid and produces miracles, but going to a trad priest whose Ordination is without question is to be avoided (due mainly to the bizarre 'Consecration' but also because he disagrees with +Williamson).
I'm getting the idea from a few people on CathInfo that there's more of an issue with other trads than with the New Order established by the enemies of the Church. Funny stuff. I'm open to having my mind changed.
-
going to Mass is a man made rule of the Church
The OP makes the mistake of calling the Church a human institution. It is a Divine institution.
-
Well, his Mass is certainly valid, but not so sure about those offered by "priests" that he might ordain, or other people with doubtful orders that he's been known to parade through Boston.
I have no issues with the validity of the +Thuc line, though there is a weak link in Bishop Webster's priestly lineage (there's a docuмent indicating that too was resolved), but the first attempt by +Webster to consecrated Fr. Pfeiffer was clearly invalid (not even just doubtful). They claim it was redone conditionally later, but we have only their word for it, and the credibility of their assessment that the second attempt was valid is undermined by their claims that the first one was valid.
Yes, I would avoid his priests as I do NO priests, to me his whole consecration fiasco was like something out of a movie or something, so for me I simply completely avoid that whole saga.
As for +Thuc, I think people simply accept a lot of confusing or misinformation about him. His consecrations are valid even if illicit. His main problem, imo, was that he consecrated a lot of bishops he probably should not have, but what's done cannot be undone, again, imo.
-
There is no obligation (under pain of sin) to attend any particular lifeboat. We are all obligated to DO OUR BEST to KEEP THE FAITH especially if we have souls under our charge.
But the choice of which lifeboat -- which Mass/Sacraments provider to make use of -- that is left to our own wisdom and prudence.
No one, not even a lay pope on CathInfo, can bind anyone's conscience in this matter. God will judge each of us, that we did our best with what we had (what choices we had, our own particular situation). And no one knows your EXACT situation like you do. That's why we all must give our fellow Catholics the benefit of the doubt, and not try to compel their consciences under threats of mortal sin.
And yes, I believe it highly prudent to avoid Fr. Pfeiffer's cult AT ALL COSTS, as in "even if you have no other option than staying home 365 days a year and getting ZERO Masses".
Because there are worse situations, and worse fates, than having no Mass to attend. Many saints believed a bad priest was worse than no priest, for example. That's where I'm getting my opinion/thinking on this issue.
Let's put it this way: if priests with dangerous errors weren't justification for staying home on Sunday, then WHAT IN THE HECK HAVE WE TRADS BEEN DOING THIS PAST 50 YEARS? Isn't this concept the very foundation and justification for the Traditional Movement? That the Novus Ordo has destroyed souls, and so it is prudent/humble to NOT EXPOSE OURSELVES to such cunning, crafty errors that have deceived many? Wouldn't a Trad cult with a charismatic leader qualify, as much as your average Novus Ordo priest?
See, it's not just about the Mass. It's about the Faith. It's always been about the Faith.
Just like in the 90's, it was a better move to send your kids to public school than a Novus Ordo "Catholic" school. Because NO religious instruction, where your defenses are up against all the pagans, can be BETTER than being sent to a "safe" place like a "Catholic" school where they will imbibe heresy and error, where their defenses will NOT be up.
-
If we are not obligated, then why not be a home-aloner?
-
He is a valid priest, why do you say his sacraments are doubtful?
It is tragic but too bad for him and his supporters.
Walk out when he starts his sermon. Very, very easy to do. I've done it enough times in the early days of this crisis to tell you it is very easy, almost too easy to do.
No, I always avoid all things NO, that includes the NO's indult.
It does not sound right because in this age of "the wild west" of traditionalists, necessity dictates that we be judge and jury on everything, but the law of the Church still obliges us under pain of mortal sin to get to Mass if there is one we can get to. We have no choice in this. Whatever “bishop” Pfeiffer is or is not, he still is certainly a validly ordained priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice that we are obligated, under pain of mortal sin to attend.
This is my understanding as well, so long as the Priest and Mass are themselves valid, that the obligation does not cease.
-
If we are not obligated, then why not be a home-aloner?
Similar to the Dimond's argument to avoid all Traditionalist priests who do not ascribe to their views.
-
hmmm :confused: ... food for thought. Since technically no Traditional chapel has canonical recognition and authorization, does this mean Trad Catholics are not technically / legally obliged to assist at those Masses on Sundays?
This seems to be a position that leads to home-aloneism.
-
If we are not obligated, then why not be a home-aloner?
Because we get many graces from receiving the sacraments. Just because we aren’t obliged to assist doesn’t necessarily mean we shouldn’t attend mass any chance we get.
-
This seems to be a position that leads to home-aloneism.
Home aloners believe that you SHOULDN’T assist at any mass. I’ve held this position for close to 30 years and never fell into home aloneism.
-
hmmm :confused: ... food for thought. Since technically no Traditional chapel has canonical recognition and authorization, does this mean Trad Catholics are not technically / legally obliged to assist at those Masses on Sundays?
Yes, but I don’t like to spread this thought too openly as I don’t want to dissuade anyone from attending mass and receiving the sacraments. In any event, it is a truth that none of these mass centers technically satisfy our obligation to assist at Sunday mass.
-
As with most things related to Traditional Catholicism, there are more questions than answers.
In the end, it is up to each individual to decide if he should attend this or that mass or none at all.
Some people believe that the indult is ok. Some people think that the SSPX is ok. Some people think that Una cuм masses are mortal sin. And so on.
Let's pray that God will be merciful with everyone. I believe that He will not punish people of any (Tradionalist) position, if they are sincere about what they are doing.
-
There is no obligation (under pain of sin) to attend any particular lifeboat. We are all obligated to DO OUR BEST to KEEP THE FAITH especially if we have souls under our charge.
But the choice of which lifeboat -- which Mass/Sacraments provider to make use of -- that is left to our own wisdom and prudence.
No one, not even a lay pope on CathInfo, can bind anyone's conscience in this matter. God will judge each of us, that we did our best with what we had (what choices we had, our own particular situation). And no one knows your EXACT situation like you do. That's why we all must give our fellow Catholics the benefit of the doubt, and not try to compel their consciences under threats of mortal sin.
And yes, I believe it highly prudent to avoid Fr. Pfeiffer's cult AT ALL COSTS, as in "even if you have no other option than staying home 365 days a year and getting ZERO Masses".
Because there are worse situations, and worse fates, than having no Mass to attend. Many saints believed a bad priest was worse than no priest, for example. That's where I'm getting my opinion/thinking on this issue.
Let's put it this way: if priests with dangerous errors weren't justification for staying home on Sunday, then WHAT IN THE HECK HAVE WE TRADS BEEN DOING THIS PAST 50 YEARS? Isn't this concept the very foundation and justification for the Traditional Movement? That the Novus Ordo has destroyed souls, and so it is prudent/humble to NOT EXPOSE OURSELVES to such cunning, crafty errors that have deceived many? Wouldn't a Trad cult with a charismatic leader qualify, as much as your average Novus Ordo priest?
See, it's not just about the Mass. It's about the Faith. It's always been about the Faith.
Just like in the 90's, it was a better move to send your kids to public school than a Novus Ordo "Catholic" school. Because NO religious instruction, where your defenses are up against all the pagans, can be BETTER than being sent to a "safe" place like a "Catholic" school where they will imbibe heresy and error, where their defenses will NOT be up.
Great post! 👍👍👍
-
Yes, but I don’t like to spread this thought too openly as I don’t want to dissuade anyone from attending mass and receiving the sacraments. In any event, it is a truth that none of these mass centers technically satisfy our obligation to assist at Sunday mass.
So the Church has left us with no masses we are obliged to attend?
-
I don’t want to dissuade anyone from attending mass and receiving the sacraments. In any event, it is a truth that none of these mass centers technically satisfy our obligation to assist at Sunday mass.
That is where "God will judge" comes in. On the one hand, we can't compel the conscience of others to assist at any particular lifeboat. On the other hand, home-aloners who foolishly reject GOOD OPTIONS for Mass will have to answer for any fallout that results from their foolishness.
For example, there is a older man in my area (of Italian descent) whose grown daughter married a Novus Ordo man. She has several children, mostly girls. They were older kids, some of them almost teens. He convinced his daughter to take them to Mass at a Resistance chapel (the one I oversee) before Fr. Pfeiffer went off the deep end. Great priests, great sermons, great socialization with other Trads (including kids), and overall a great source of true Catholic influence. Later, when Fr. P went to war against the whole Resistance, this man stopped coming and so did his daughter. Now think about it: what influence will that daughter and her kids have now? 100% Novus Ordo plus a bit of pagan The World thrown in. Where are those children going to get ANY Catholic influence from now on? (Keep in mind Fr. P doesn't exactly come out this way EVER...) How is that wise in any one's book? That man 100% made a foolish move, adhering to his cult leader Fr. P who basically considers himself the de-facto Pope, with de-facto primary jurisdiction over the whole world. He even goes so far as to tell his cult members to avoid Masses with anyone else, even those in the Resistance! Insanity. Pure insanity.
So yes, we are "free" to do what we want, but that's a double edged sword, like any right/responsibility combo. Whenever God gives you a responsibility (like raising children, saving your soul) He will judge you strictly on how you carried out that responsibility. Your rights are given to you so that you can carry out your responsibilities.
So yeah, you have this glorious right to do what you feel is right, but at the same time what a great responsibility it is! Knowing that God knows all, and will judge strictly and justly. So heaven help you if pride, laziness, avarice, convenience, or any other base motive factored into "your decision" about where to attend Mass.
-
This seems to be a position that leads to home-aloneism.
Only for people who are lazy and looking for excuses not to go to Mass. Question is not whether one CAN assist at these Masses but whether they, strictly speaking, satisfy one's Sunday obligation.
-
So the Church has left us with no masses we are obliged to attend?
This question makes no sense. So what? We have Masses AVAILABLE to us that please God and help us save our souls ... and whether or not they're technically / strictly / legally / canonically obligatory (i.e. satisfy our obligation) means next to nothing by comparison to having them available. So ... if Sunday Mass weren't obligatory, you'd stop going to Mass or something?
-
That is where "God will judge" comes in. On the one hand, we can't compel the conscience of others to assist at any particular lifeboat. On the other hand, home-aloners who foolishly reject GOOD OPTIONS for Mass will have to answer for any fallout that results from their foolishness.
For example, there is a older man in my area (of Italian descent) whose grown daughter married a Novus Ordo man. She has several children, mostly girls. They were older kids, some of them almost teens. He convinced his daughter to take them to Mass at a Resistance chapel (the one I oversee) before Fr. Pfeiffer went off the deep end. Great priests, great sermons, great socialization with other Trads (including kids), and overall a great source of true Catholic influence. Later, when Fr. P went to war against the whole Resistance, this man stopped coming and so did his daughter. Now think about it: what influence will that daughter and her kids have now? 100% Novus Ordo plus a bit of pagan The World thrown in. Where are those children going to get ANY Catholic influence from now on? (Keep in mind Fr. P doesn't exactly come out this way EVER...) How is that wise in any one's book? That man 100% made a foolish move, adhering to his cult leader Fr. P who basically considers himself the de-facto Pope, with de-facto primary jurisdiction over the whole world. He even goes so far as to tell his cult members to avoid Masses with anyone else, even those in the Resistance! Insanity. Pure insanity.
So yes, we are "free" to do what we want, but that's a double edged sword, like any right/responsibility combo. Whenever God gives you a responsibility (like raising children, saving your soul) He will judge you strictly on how you carried out that responsibility. Your rights are given to you so that you can carry out your responsibilities.
So yeah, you have this glorious right to do what you feel is right, but at the same time what a great responsibility it is! Knowing that God knows all, and will judge strictly and justly. So heaven help you if pride, laziness, avarice, convenience, or any other base motive factored into "your decision" about where to attend Mass.
Another good post!
-
Only for people who are lazy and looking for excuses not to go to Mass. Question is not whether one CAN assist at these Masses but whether they, strictly speaking, satisfy one's Sunday obligation.
Yes, I agree.
-
There is no obligation (under pain of sin) to attend any particular lifeboat. We are all obligated to DO OUR BEST to KEEP THE FAITH especially if we have souls under our charge.
But the choice of which lifeboat -- which Mass/Sacraments provider to make use of -- that is left to our own wisdom and prudence.
No one, not even a lay pope on CathInfo, can bind anyone's conscience in this matter. God will judge each of us, that we did our best with what we had (what choices we had, our own particular situation). And no one knows your EXACT situation like you do. That's why we all must give our fellow Catholics the benefit of the doubt, and not try to compel their consciences under threats of mortal sin.
And yes, I believe it highly prudent to avoid Fr. Pfeiffer's cult AT ALL COSTS, as in "even if you have no other option than staying home 365 days a year and getting ZERO Masses".
Because there are worse situations, and worse fates, than having no Mass to attend. Many saints believed a bad priest was worse than no priest, for example. That's where I'm getting my opinion/thinking on this issue.
Let's put it this way: if priests with dangerous errors weren't justification for staying home on Sunday, then WHAT IN THE HECK HAVE WE TRADS BEEN DOING THIS PAST 50 YEARS? Isn't this concept the very foundation and justification for the Traditional Movement? That the Novus Ordo has destroyed souls, and so it is prudent/humble to NOT EXPOSE OURSELVES to such cunning, crafty errors that have deceived many? Wouldn't a Trad cult with a charismatic leader qualify, as much as your average Novus Ordo priest?
See, it's not just about the Mass. It's about the Faith. It's always been about the Faith.
Just like in the 90's, it was a better move to send your kids to public school than a Novus Ordo "Catholic" school. Because NO religious instruction, where your defenses are up against all the pagans, can be BETTER than being sent to a "safe" place like a "Catholic" school where they will imbibe heresy and error, where their defenses will NOT be up.
I agree 100% and well said. Here I will correct myself and stress that my previous posts are meant to apply to me, that I'm the one who needs to go or I would sin, and that as is so often the case today, others need to discern the situation for themselves.
For me, if he did something wrong during Mass then I would leave and not go there again, but for me, initially, I prioritize my obligation to attend above my feelings or what I think of the priest - and although he is at the bottom of my personal list - I would continue to go there if that's all I had and if I could do so without jeopardizing my faith.
In my mind, I liken Fr. Pfeiffer to +Sanborn back in the early days when Bishop Sanborn was a young Fr. Sanborn. I regularly served his masses as he gradually made himself into a type of pope, not too unlike Fr. Pfeiffer today. It got to the point where Fr. Sanborn no longer held back and went off the deep end, so we left. For me, this scenario QVD came up with is not much more than kind of a rerun from 50 years ago.
-
So the Church has left us with no masses we are obliged to attend?
Does it really matter if the masses we attend on Sunday satisfy the Church’s law of the Sunday obligation? We go to receive graces. We go to set a good example. We go because we should go.
There are some older parish priests still around (I think there are two in France) that still celebrate mass in their churches and still have jurisdiction. If you lived in that area I believe it would be obligatory to attend their Sunday mass.
-
Sure it matters QvD and makes sense Ladislaus. Because to say that all of the masses available are not obligatory means the Church has required something of us that we cannot satisfy. Assisting at mass is not just about what we get out of it. It's about doing what the Church/God wills of us.
And to be clear, I am not telling people what they should or should not do. I am looking at this issue outside of that..the bigger picture: Whether the Church (still) provides masses for us in order to fulfill our Sunday Obligation. It seems that most are saying that the Church does not.
-
I've never thought traditional chapels satisfy the Sunday obligation, but at the same time I've always thought NOT going to such a mass--supposing the usual conditions are met--is probably sinful and definitely unwise. The third commandment requires us too keep the Lord's Day holy... What better way than to attend Holy Mass? And what better way to dishonor the Lord's Day than to refuse to go to a Mass that one could go to?
-
Sure it matters QvD and makes sense Ladislaus. Because to say that all of the masses available are not obligatory means the Church has required something of us that we cannot satisfy. Assisting at mass is not just about what we get out of it. It's about doing what the Church/God wills of us.
And to be clear, I am not telling people what they should or should not do. I am looking at this issue outside of that..the bigger picture: Whether the Church (still) provides masses for us in order to fulfill our Sunday Obligation. It seems that most are saying that the Church does not.
I agree. The 6 Commandments of the Church have not been abrogated, the commandment at hand (from the BC) is: "To hear Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation." This means that it is our duty as Catholics to go to Mass - in this day and age we need to add the proviso "if one is provided for us."
The BC goes on....
Q. 1329. Is it a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation?
A. It is a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious reason. They also commit a mortal sin who, having others under their charge, hinder them from hearing Mass, without a sufficient reason.
I look at it like this; if Fr. Pfeiffer's Mass is the only one available, my first inclination is to go, period. I must discern for myself whether or not to risk sinning by not going for whatever reason. That's how I look at it - whether it's Fr. P or some other nefarious priest. Unfortunately, the catechism does not take today's crisis into account as far as what is a "serious reason." We're pretty much on our own for that.
Matthew made excellent points which absolutely need to factor into the decision of whether to expose oneself to that situation or not.
-
Canon Law is very specific on what satisfies the requirements for the Sunday obligation. This is from the moral theologian Heribert Jone OFM:
-
Sure it matters QvD and makes sense Ladislaus. Because to say that all of the masses available are not obligatory means the Church has required something of us that we cannot satisfy. Assisting at mass is not just about what we get out of it. It's about doing what the Church/God wills of us.
And to be clear, I am not telling people what they should or should not do. I am looking at this issue outside of that..the bigger picture: Whether the Church (still) provides masses for us in order to fulfill our Sunday Obligation. It seems that most are saying that the Church does not.
It seems to me that the Divine Law to Keep Holy the Sabbath Day or to Sanctify Sunday can be fulfilled even in our times. The obligation to assist at mass is a Church law that can’t always be observed and sometimes allows for a dispensation or an excuse on reasonable grounds. For instance, we are excused from our Sunday duty of assisting at mass if we are sick, live a distance from mass, or we are staying in an area were no mass is available.
-
Jone says a church is a "sacred edifice dedicated to divine worship and open to all the faithful for this purpose." This sounds like most trad chapels to me.
-
Jone says a church is a "sacred edifice dedicated to divine worship and open to all the faithful for this purpose." This sounds like most trad chapels to me.
I think after reading the whole page in context it becomes obvious that by the word “church” he means a sacred edifice that was established by the Church Herself. If that wasn’t the case then there would be no need to differentiate between churches, oratories, or semi public oratories, etc..
-
In my opinion, we cannot say that this is a "disciplinary rule, and nothing else".
It is more like an extension of the third commandment.
The five commandments of the Church are more than disciplinary rules. They are more like the minimum you need to do in order to have a spiritual life.
I agree I did not mean to minimise Church made law, but certain Divine laws are paramount.
I understand that there are in fact 6 precepts of the Church, 1) to hear Mass in Sundays and HDO 2) to fast and abstain on days appointed 3) to confess our sins at least once a year 4) to receive Holy Communion in Pascaltide 5) to contribute to the support of the Church/priest 6) ( the law currently omitted by the conciliar Church) to observe the laws of the Church regarding marriage
(I believe there are many more laws of the Church but 6 that are directed at the laity.)
-
This is my understanding as well, so long as the Priest and Mass are themselves valid, that the obligation does not cease.
Mine is that because of the crisis in the Church we are not obligated to go to mass, though If a valid mass with a valid priest who doesn't harm your faith is available and close enough, it's still good to go.
-
This question makes no sense. So what? We have Masses AVAILABLE to us that please God and help us save our souls ... and whether or not they're technically / strictly / legally / canonically obligatory (i.e. satisfy our obligation) means next to nothing by comparison to having them available. So ... if Sunday Mass weren't obligatory, you'd stop going to Mass or something?
Yeah it's similar to going to mass and receiving the Eucharist. You don't always have to take communion, but it is good for your soul when taken with the proper dispositions. Also I think many become home aloners due to dogmatically following the diamonds, due to a lack of clear content else where. Since the dimonds material is the easiest and most convenient especially for new 'traditional' Catholics. I.e watching a video vs reading a text based article etc. Plus the dimonds have both text and video covered... Most trad groups have text and if they do have videos they aren't well 'made' for consumption like the dimonds. Clear cut material with strong presentation and sources against alone aloneism works.
-
Canon Law is very specific on what satisfies the requirements for the Sunday obligation. This is from the moral theologian Heribert Jone OFM:
Of course you realize Jone wasn't talking about during a time of great Crisis in the Church or persecution. Which we are living in today, I should point out.
-
The BC goes on....
I look at it like this; if Fr. Pfeiffer's Mass is the only one available, my first inclination is to go, period. I must discern for myself whether or not to risk sinning by not going for whatever reason. That's how I look at it - whether it's Fr. P or some other nefarious priest. Unfortunately, the catechism does not take today's crisis into account as far as what is a "serious reason." We're pretty much on our own for that.
This kind of thinking is why so many Catholics went along with Vatican II and didn't leave, to join the Traditional Movement. Their thinking was, "It's still the Mass. The Mass is the Mass. We are commanded to attend Mass. What else are we going to do?" So they took their family every week to the Novus Ordo Missae -- and the rest is sad history. We know how that turned out. Years later, they're all Conciliar Catholics, de-facto protestants, feminist, on birth control, practically Communist in their thinking in every way. They don't believe in purgatory, they don't pray the Rosary, none of them fast or abstain anymore, etc.
You can't just ignore dangers like that.
What I'm saying is, if you only focus on "Mass" or "valid Mass", you can ignore some pretty SERIOUS "other stuff" which can totally annihilate your Faith and your spiritual life in a relatively short period of time.
-
As I said "I must discern for myself whether or not to risk sinning by not going for whatever reason." I am not trying to tell anyone else what to do.
And remember that in this case, we are talking about a certainly validly ordained priest and the True Mass - nothing whatsoever to do with NO priests and their jazz. I am saying that if I went at all, it would be because it's my one and only choice and that I would perhaps go to confession, receive Our Lord, and leave when it ends. IOW, regardless of his serious faults, I would use him for what I need, for the benefit my soul and that's it, that's all of it. It's not like I'm endorsing conversing with him. I am conditionally endorsing using him for our soul's needs *if that's all you have available*.
Also, I was raised to never look at whether the NO "mass" was valid or not because it is neither valid nor invalid, what it is for sure is evil. The consecration within the NO "mass" might be valid or invalid, no one knows for sure, but I avoid the NO because regardless of the question of validity of it's consecration, the "mass" or service itself is evil, and it is that service itself that brings with it the loss of faith.
As I said, that's how " *I* look at it," that's how I've always looked at it. Deo Gratias that He saw fit that *I* no longer need to concern myself with any of that, but that's how I worked it when I did - and how I would work it if I need to again.
-
Mine is that because of the crisis in the Church we are not obligated to go to mass, though If a valid mass with a valid priest who doesn't harm your faith is available and close enough, it's still good to go.
.
I really don't understand where this idea came from. People are not obliged to hear Mass anymore? Why not?
I look up in the 1917 code of canon law, and it looks like the relevant canons (https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Benedict XV, Pope/The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law_ In English Translation with Extensive Scholarly (7786)/The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon - Benedict XV, Pope.pdf) are as follows:
Canon 124815 (1983 CIC 1247)
On feast days of precept, Mass is to be heard; there is an abstinence from servile work, legal acts, and likewise, unless there is a special indult or legitimate customs provide otherwise, from public trade, shopping, and other public buying and selling.
Canon Law Digest
II: 358–60; III: 493; VI: 670–75; VII: 778–79; VIII: 868–69; IX: 722; X: 190
Canon 1249 (1983 CIC 1248)
The law of hearing the Sacred [rites] is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a Catholic rite under the sky or in any church or public or semi-public oratory and in the little building of a private cemetery mentioned in Canon 1190, but not in other private oratories, unless this privilege has been granted by the Apostolic See.
It says there that people must attend Mass on a day of precept.
-
.
I really don't understand where this idea came from. People are not obliged to hear Mass anymore? Why not?
I look up in the 1917 code of canon law, and it looks like the relevant canons (https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Benedict XV, Pope/The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law_ In English Translation with Extensive Scholarly (7786)/The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon - Benedict XV, Pope.pdf) are as follows:
It says there that people must attend Mass on a day of precept.
What exactly are the options for attending mass? If only novus ordo is available? Or it an indult tlm? Or any tlm with a Novus ordo priest? Eastern Catholic?
And then there's also home aloners saying most traditional priests do not have jurisdiction. So would their mass even fulfill the requirement?