I don't want to go to Mass anymore

[james03]

From what I understand the actual faith is not needed as long as a priest has an intention of doing what the Church does. Same for an atheist conferring a sacrament of baptism in case of emergency.

From New Advent:

The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required.

This man does not intend to truly transubstantiate and present the sacrificed Body of Christ to the Father.  This supper service is not the Mass.

[diaduit]

If not, try to watch a live stream one on Sunday.

I really dislike this, I remember they tried to do this during the lockdowns thus saying it was no big deal, the only use is for the homily and imagery, that's it, when it comes to the Sacraments it's useless, after all, I can't 'see' the Real Presence, I can't be in Christ's Real Presence nor receive it, at the end of the day it's just an image and audio feed, those are the only two senses available.

Making a video call and speaking in person are very different too. How much more so with the Real Presence which cannot be seen or heard? (unless in the case of a Eucharistic Miracle) Thus, I'll never do a 'livestream' or 'recorded' Mass, which IMO is a form of deception to compare it to a real Mass, useful for a homily, otherwise it's not a substitute IMO.

God Bless

It is not a form of deception.

In the 40s and 50s, those in remote areas, hospice, etc had to avail themselves of Mass broadcast over the radio. Then, came film and television. There is a famous black and white Mass narrated by Monsignor Fulton Sheen on YouTube.

These have never "compared" to assisting at a Mass, but have simply been tools for the faithful when they are unable to attend a Catholic rite to worship Almighty God, or there are none available.


When I lived in rural Mexico, I remember the enormous consolation I received when EWTN broadcast a solemn high Mass.

The OP finds herself in a situation where her local Mass/parish/priest is spewing heresy and nonsense and, rather than nourishing her Faith, is harming her faith.

It is no different than were she to find herself in England under Elizabeth I, or in a German principality that decided to align with Luther.

The local shepherd gives his children stones rather than bread.

Ultimately, this is an issue between the OP, her confessor, and God. All of us will provide our own take based on our own circumstances.

I am a married man responsible for my wife and my son.

When traveling, I am past the point of going to any local NO and "toughing out" any bullshit.

I'm done with that. I will have to answer before the Judgment Seat.

I will only attend a TLM, or an Ad Orientem NO, without any bullshit.

If these aren't available, we won't attend. We will stay home. Others disagree. For example, they will "suffer through" an awful Novus Ordo because "it's valid," or scruples regarding "Sunday obligations." My take on validity is, even Black Masses are valid, EO is valid, some Anglican or even Lutheran services may be valid. The obligation is to attend a Catholic rite.

We can argue this til the cows come home but good Catholics will come to different conclusions. 

As Bishop Williamson famously said, do whatever you need to nourish your faith.

Yes I tried the tough it out at N O when I spend my summers in Co Clare and had to stop as I couldn't stomach watching the receiving in the hands and the disrespect from everyone during mass and then I felt like a judgemental hypocrite when I was churning over what I was seeing.  Add to that, you just cannot pray during the endless jibber jabber which sounds nothing like prayer to give glory to God.

When I stopped, I kicked myself in the ass mentally and realised I had to drive one hour to mass in Limerick and actually don't pass any heed on the driving now (here, driving an hour is seems like crossing the country!!).
Now I don't say this to have a pop at you Bernie, your restrictions of access to trad mass is your business but personally I would not be able to sit through that mass.

[Baylee]

If not, try to watch a live stream one on Sunday.

I really dislike this, I remember they tried to do this during the lockdowns thus saying it was no big deal, the only use is for the homily and imagery, that's it, when it comes to the Sacraments it's useless, after all, I can't 'see' the Real Presence, I can't be in Christ's Real Presence nor receive it, at the end of the day it's just an image and audio feed, those are the only two senses available.

Making a video call and speaking in person are very different too. How much more so with the Real Presence which cannot be seen or heard? (unless in the case of a Eucharistic Miracle) Thus, I'll never do a 'livestream' or 'recorded' Mass, which IMO is a form of deception to compare it to a real Mass, useful for a homily, otherwise it's not a substitute IMO.

God Bless

It is not a form of deception.

In the 40s and 50s, those in remote areas, hospice, etc had to avail themselves of Mass broadcast over the radio. Then, came film and television. There is a famous black and white Mass narrated by Monsignor Fulton Sheen on YouTube.

These have never "compared" to assisting at a Mass, but have simply been tools for the faithful when they are unable to attend a Catholic rite to worship Almighty God, or there are none available.

Exactly.  Beggars can't be choosers. 

However, I'm pretty sure it is Church teaching that, when it comes to the Sacrament of Confession, it must be in person.

[Bernadette]

However, I'm pretty sure it is Church teaching that, when it comes to the Sacrament of Confession, it must be in person.

Yes, that is correct.

[Michael Wilson]

Andy,
on the validity of the Consecration by the priest that doesn't believe in the Real Presence; In some sacraments a minimum intention of "doing what the Church does", is all that is necessary for validity such as Baptism; however, in some, the priest needs more than just the minimum intention; such as in Confession, where he must make a judgement on the completeness and sincerity of the penitent, and really intend to absolve him.
In the case of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the priest must really intend to consecrate the matter; it is very doubtful, given this priest's lack on faith in the Real Presence, that he does consecrate with this intention.

[andy]

From what I understand the actual faith is not needed as long as a priest has an intention of doing what the Church does. Same for an atheist conferring a sacrament of baptism in case of emergency.

From New Advent:

The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required.

This man does not intend to truly transubstantiate and present the sacrificed Body of Christ to the Father.  This supper service is not the Mass.

That begs the question what is "a real internal intention". And you still did not answer up to whom it is pronounce that kind of judgement.

BTW in your quote, you seem to omit most important part of Rev. Delany's distinction between various kinds of intentions. Specifically https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=37121

[Kent]

I mean, I'd say don't go to the Novus Ordo even if your priest *does* believe in transubstantiation...

[awkward customer]

Do Novus Ordo priests offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?  Or do they instead 'preside' while the People of God gather together to celebrate the Eucharist?

When an NO priest does what the Conciliar Church intends, he doesn't need to believe in transubstantiation.  And he won't need to believe that he is an Alter Christus offering the Body and Blood of Christ to God as a sacrifice in an act of adoration, propitiation, thanksgiving and petition?  The People of God are perfect already and besides, Hell is empty.   The spirit told them so.

[james03]

That begs the question what is "a real internal intention".

The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention ... to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required.

And you still did not answer up to whom it is pronounce that kind of judgement.

Judge what?  Whether this priest is a pathological liar or not when he states that he does not transubstantiate?

[Baylee]

From what I understand the actual faith is not needed as long as a priest has an intention of doing what the Church does. Same for an atheist conferring a sacrament of baptism in case of emergency.

From New Advent:

The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required.

This man does not intend to truly transubstantiate and present the sacrificed Body of Christ to the Father.  This supper service is not the Mass.

That begs the question what is "a real internal intention". And you still did not answer up to whom it is pronounce that kind of judgement.

BTW in your quote, you seem to omit most important part of Rev. Delany's distinction between various kinds of intentions. Specifically https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=37121

Andy, this particular NO priest literally told Bernadette that he doesn't believe in transubstantiation (or something to that effect).  His intent is explicitly (ie. not internal) known.

[Miriam_M]

Let's put aside for a moment the priest's intention, and instead focus on an alternative for Bernadette.  The reason I say this is that many of us on this forum faced the suppression of sacraments during the House Arrests and locked churches of 2020-21.  At that time, threads were opened on the subject, regarding what solutions people were seeking and finding.  Thus, what I'm saying is that -- for any reason and by any hand, clerical or secular, Catholics could find themselves again without their usual resources.  For example, this is happening to the Institute still in Chicago, and my understanding is that they are proceeding the way they did three years ago and similarly how the Fraternity operated during the same time period, which is...

Church doors are open for the faithful to make visits.
Priests say their private Masses in the sanctuary, without a public schedule for those. Anyone may attend.
Priests hear Confessions.
Individuals can meet with priests for spiritual guidance, by appointment.

Since I experienced this myself a few years ago, I can tell you that I was not able to tolerate being out of the Presence for an extended period of time, even when public Masses with Holy Communion were not available.  I traveled a very long distance for this.  If I didn't have a car, I would have taken multiple forms of public transportation in order to do the same.  It would have been worth it to me. But the incomparable value of a traditional private Mass said by a trad priest -- although private -- was so moving that I wept openly the first time I was privileged to be present for one.

If I didn't have that distant option, I would probably move.  The idea of never being close enough to a Mass wherein the priest shares the intention to consecrate bread and wine into the Body and Blood would be inconceivable to me. 

If all I had within reasonable travel distance (say, 2 hours) was a priest who did have the proper intention and who celebrated Mass with some dignity, I would travel there if for no other reason than to pray in the Presence. 

Alternatively, if I needed to travel by any method to a motel near a Church were any serious, orthodox priest said a Mass on Sunday, I would stay overnight there on Saturday.

[andy]

Judge what?  Whether this priest is a pathological liar or not when he states that he does not transubstantiate?

Andy, this particular NO priest literally told Bernadette that he doesn't believe in transubstantiation (or something to that effect).  His intent is explicitly (ie. not internal) known.

I still say that most we can say in those cases is a strong positive doubt and just avoid this place. There too many missing parts int this story. If I knew the priest, I would definitely confront him about the intentions (like I actually did in my recent example) to eliminate the doubt. Directly.

If you are so convinced it is all a joke not a Mass, now you must go to the diocese and report it. Under the pain of mortal sin.

[Bernadette]

I did confront him, and he lost it and yelled at me.

[Bonaventure]

If you are so convinced it is all a joke not a Mass, now you must go to the diocese and report it. Under the pain of mortal sin.

No. You cannot make pronouncements that bind under pain of mortal sin.

[Baylee]

Bernadette,

Do you drive? Do you have access to transportation?  What are mass options for you (even if far)?