Every week, I force myself to go, and lately every week it's my old priest offering the Mass, who told me that the Eucharist wasn't literally the Body and Blood of Christ. According to him, it's a Sacramental sign. Probably got this from Karl Rahner or John Wesley. Every time I see him, I remember it and it makes me angry all over again. I've forgiven grave sins against me personally, but I can't get over this. I have no access to another church. I shouldn't have to go to Mass that's offered by a priest with a defective understanding of the Eucharist, who's trying to pass it off as Church teaching. Knowing what I know, it's difficult for me to see him offer Mass. What exactly is he consecrating? What sacrifice is being offered here? I have to make acts of faith throughout the whole thing, but it feels like a sham.
This supper service is not Mass as objectively this "priest" is not trying to do what the Church intends, that is, transubstantiate bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It remains bread and wine. He has told you this by his own words.
You don't have to attend in my opinion as this is not a Catholic Mass. Try to find a Trad Mass. If not, try to watch a live stream one on Sunday. Perhaps other posters can provide you a Youtube channel And maybe take a vacation when you can and travel to a Traditional Chapel.
And no matter what, don't receive this invalid sacrament.
Quote from: james03 on September 10, 2023, 06:29:29 PMAnd no matter what, don't receive this invalid sacrament.
With all due respect, you do not have neither an authority not competency to make a such statement. All we can say that there is a positive doubt, and indeed we should stay away from such places.
Quote from: Bernadette on September 10, 2023, 05:51:39 PMI've forgiven grave sins against me personally
Forgiveness is one thing but I wonder if he actually repented those
Quote from: Bernadette on September 10, 2023, 05:51:39 PMWhat exactly is he consecrating? What sacrifice is being offered here?
Somebody asked me to go together to the last First Saturday Mass, Adoration and Meditation. At a NO parish. I know the priest working there for almost 20 years, he is a good guy, but since I moved to Tradition, I go to that church only if there is a funeral or similar.
And right before the Adoration ... the priest ... said, that our faith makes God present in Blessed Sacrament. Expressis verbis. I instantly froze. Not that I was surprised, he is modernism huger for long time, but still it was something out of line even for him.
I did contact him next day, explained calmly the actual Church teaching and he thanked me for that. There is always a hope.
QuoteWith all due respect, you do not have neither an authority not competency to make a such statement.
And what do I need, a Masters in Theology? a PhD? to have the competency to comprehend this:
Quotethe Eucharist wasn't literally the Body and Blood of Christ.
Am I to assume he intends to Transubstantiate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ when he states he does not?
Quote from: andy on September 10, 2023, 08:01:37 PMQuote from: james03 on September 10, 2023, 06:29:29 PMAnd no matter what, don't receive this invalid sacrament.
With all due respect, you do not have neither an authority not competency to make a such statement. All we can say that there is a positive doubt, and indeed we should stay away from such places.
The end result is the same. However, given this is a NO priest, chances are there is enough positive doubt about his ordination. So, his intention to consecrate the bread doesn't even have to play into things.
Quote from: andy on September 10, 2023, 08:14:03 PMQuote from: Bernadette on September 10, 2023, 05:51:39 PMI've forgiven grave sins against me personally
Forgiveness is one thing but I wonder if he actually repented those
No, not sins against me by the priest. By other people.
It is not good for you spiritually or psychologically to continue to attend this.
Validity here isn't the issue.
Quote from: Bernadette on September 10, 2023, 05:51:39 PMwho told me that the Eucharist wasn't literally the Body and Blood of Christ. According to him, it's a Sacramental sign.
You could always send him the Catechism of the Catholic Church -
Quote from: Catechism of the Catholic Church1374. "The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as 'the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.' [St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 73, 3c.] In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist 'the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.' [Council of Trent (1551): DS 1651.] 'This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.' [Paul VI, MF 39.]"
Source - https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM
Quote from: Matthew 18:15-1715 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Thus, you have the source, you can bring it to him, and if he still refuses to listen, you could bring it to the attention of the Bishop IMO.
Remember too the Miracle of Lanciano - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano
Quote from: Miracle of Lanciano - Wikipediathe monk had doubts about the Catholic doctrine of the real presence. During the Mass, when he said the Words of Consecration ("This is my body. This is my blood"), the priest saw the bread change into living flesh and, the wine change into blood which coagulated into five globules, of different shapes and sizes.
This tells me that it may still be valid even if the Priest doubts or denies it as long as the words of consecration etc the 'formula' is unchanged, nevertheless, it's dangerous grounds, because obviously we cannot see or taste the 'Accidents' of Transubstantiation thus we rely on faith unless there is a Eucharistic Miracle that occurs.
So it'll be up to you where exactly you draw the line in the sand, nevertheless, here are the resources needed to try and win back a Priest if at all possible, in the worst case scenario, many times throughout history faithful Catholics have been without the Sacraments for prolonged periods of time, in which case the Holy Rosary has seen them through sometimes only having access to the Sacraments once a year.
Eventually IMO they are going to try and do away with the Real Presence (words of consecration and thus formula is changed), but until such time, I can go for the Real Presence alone, making the best of the available options until I can no more.
Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us.God Bless
Quote from: james03 on September 10, 2023, 06:29:29 PMYou don't have to attend in my opinion as this is not a Catholic Mass. Try to find a Trad Mass. If not, try to watch a live stream one on Sunday. Perhaps other posters can provide you a Youtube channel And maybe take a vacation when you can and travel to a Traditional Chapel.
https://www.institute-christ-king.org/videostream
https://fssp.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1PlGEHavdA
Quote from: james03 on September 11, 2023, 05:41:35 AMQuoteWith all due respect, you do not have neither an authority not competency to make a such statement.
And what do I need, a Masters in Theology? a PhD? to have the competency to comprehend this:
Quotethe Eucharist wasn't literally the Body and Blood of Christ.
Am I to assume he intends to Transubstantiate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ when he states he does not?
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.
This is quite different from a situation when that priest would publicly claim that Church is wrong. Then he would be a formal heretic. Church has tribunals who judge such cases though.
Quote from: Bonaventure on September 11, 2023, 07:31:38 AMValidity here isn't the issue.
Awhile back the Remnant had an interview with Bishop Schneider that touched on this very subject. Bishop Schneider stated a Catholic is obligated by the Commandment to keep Sunday holy, while this is typically done by attending Mass, we are under no obligation to attend a Mass riddled with abuses and heresy. And if this Mass is causing you spiritual distress and scandal on part of the priest, I would say who have an obligation to avoid it. Do keep in mind your Easter duty, try to get to Mass and Confession when you can, watch a livestream, and bear your cross as how God wishes to sanctify you at this time. And pray for that priest, he will have to answer to God for his heresy and scandal....
Quote from: james03 on September 10, 2023, 06:29:29 PMIf 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
Quote from: josh987654321 on September 11, 2023, 09:13:22 AMQuote from: james03 on September 10, 2023, 06:29:29 PMIf 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.
QuoteFrom 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:
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Bonaventure on September 11, 2023, 09:42:47 AMQuote from: josh987654321 on September 11, 2023, 09:13:22 AMQuote from: james03 on September 10, 2023, 06:29:29 PMIf 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.
Quote from: Bonaventure on September 11, 2023, 09:42:47 AMQuote from: josh987654321 on September 11, 2023, 09:13:22 AMQuote from: james03 on September 10, 2023, 06:29:29 PMIf 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.
Quote from: BayleeHowever, 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.
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.
Quote from: james03 on September 11, 2023, 10:44:14 AMQuoteFrom 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:
QuoteThe 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
I mean, I'd say don't go to the Novus Ordo even if your priest *does* believe in transubstantiation...
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.
QuoteThat begs the question what is "a real internal intention".
QuoteThe common doctrine now is that a real internal intention ... to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required.
QuoteAnd 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?
Quote from: andy on September 11, 2023, 05:34:44 PMQuote from: james03 on September 11, 2023, 10:44:14 AMQuoteFrom 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:
QuoteThe 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.
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.
Quote from: james03 on September 12, 2023, 07:14:39 AMJudge what? Whether this priest is a pathological liar or not when he states that he does not transubstantiate?
Quote from: Baylee on September 12, 2023, 07:57:47 AMAndy, 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.
I did confront him, and he lost it and yelled at me.
Quote from: andy on September 12, 2023, 08:37:17 AMIf 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.
Bernadette,
Do you drive? Do you have access to transportation? What are mass options for you (even if far)?
Quote from: Bernadette on September 12, 2023, 08:39:11 AMI did confront him, and he lost it and yelled at me.
As I stated in my first response to your thread, this will go on til the cows come home. It'll turn into a debate about whether one should go to the NO intrinsically, etc.
The most important part of this thread I think is being lost, which is your particular situation for the sanctification and salvation of your soul.
If you were my sister, cousin, or blood, I'd tell you the same: stop going to this place, don't confront these people, and don't feel that you need to show them the errors of their ways or change their minds.
Try to find an alternative, and if you cannot, keep holy the Lord's day in other ways.
However stop at once going to this place.
Quote from: Bernadette on September 12, 2023, 08:39:11 AMI did confront him, and he lost it and yelled at me.
That's a shame, but at least you tried. Although the outcome was predictable, but if you hadn't given it a shot, you would never know for sure if speaking to him might have worked.
That happened to me several times during my Novus Ordo days. The encounters seemed pointless at the time, but ultimately they were important and necessary stages along the way for me.
And who knows? Despite the shouting at the time, maybe later the priest spent some time in self-reflection that was profitable to him as well.
Quote from: Baylee on September 12, 2023, 09:07:42 AMBernadette,
Do you drive? Do you have access to transportation? What are mass options for you (even if far)?
I don't see well enough to drive, and there is no public transportation where I live. The closest Latin Mass is 3 hours away.
Quote from: Bernadette on September 12, 2023, 09:32:12 AMQuote from: Baylee on September 12, 2023, 09:07:42 AMBernadette,
Do you drive? Do you have access to transportation? What are mass options for you (even if far)?
I don't see well enough to drive, and there is no public transportation where I live. The closest Latin Mass is 3 hours away.
I seemed to recall that driving was an issue for you. Sorry to ask again.
I'm sorry that you're stranded away from the Traditional Mass...and that your local parish is such a source of heresy and pain. Certainly, don't assist at the "Mass" there. Nothing good seems to be happening in that place, and you'll only risk your faith and sanity to stay.
I know there's no TLM near you -- are there any other options? Eastern Catholics? Even Eastern Orthodox would be the valid body and blood of Our Lord, though we cannot receive at their liturgy. No, it isn't your patrimony as a Western Christian, but at least it is Our Lord and I've never seen an Orthodox priest spread modernism.
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on September 12, 2023, 11:03:44 AMI know there's no TLM near you -- are there any other options? Eastern Catholics? Even Eastern Orthodox would be the valid body and blood of Our Lord, though we cannot receive at their liturgy. No, it isn't your patrimony as a Western Christian, but at least it is Our Lord and I've never seen an Orthodox priest spread modernism.
No, I'm in rural Protestant country.
I don't know America and the dynamics but would you ring up the nearest trad priest (3 hours away) and offer your house for mass if they ever want to set up a new place to go to. Also chat with him on the phone, get to know him and he may just make a special trip to give you the sacraments.
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on September 12, 2023, 11:03:44 AMI know there's no TLM near you -- are there any other options? Eastern Catholics? Even Eastern Orthodox would be the valid body and blood of Our Lord, though we cannot receive at their liturgy. No, it isn't your patrimony as a Western Christian, but at least it is Our Lord and I've never seen an Orthodox priest spread modernism.
That would be partaking in the worship of non-Catholics, and that is a Mortal Sin. That is definitely not an option.
If you were in jail there would be no mass. So just do what you would do in jail. And thank God you are not in jail.
Quote from: Bonaventure on September 11, 2023, 09:42:47 AMQuote from: josh987654321 on September 11, 2023, 09:13:22 AMQuote from: james03 on September 10, 2023, 06:29:29 PMIf 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
As Bishop Williamson famously said, do whatever you need to nourish your faith.
That sounds a bit Protestanty, no? I mean maybe the context is lost but Bishop Williamson is resistance now. I personally know a Catholic family who's resistance (left the SSPX after listening to some bullshit sermon on YT); and they're an hour away from a perfectly good SSPX TLM. Oh but they'll claim it's what they need to 'nourish their faith.'
Quote from: james03 on September 10, 2023, 06:29:29 PMThis supper service is not Mass as objectively this "priest" is not trying to do what the Church intends, that is, transubstantiate bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It remains bread and wine. He has told you this by his own words.
You don't have to attend in my opinion as this is not a Catholic Mass. Try to find a Trad Mass. If not, try to watch a live stream one on Sunday. Perhaps other posters can provide you a Youtube channel And maybe take a vacation when you can and travel to a Traditional Chapel.
And no matter what, don't receive this invalid sacrament.
IIRC validity of Consecration doesn't depend on the 'intentions' of the priest; it's strictly a matter of the words.
Now, obviously not a good priest or environment. But I wouldn't say it's invalid. However if it's a scandal and a grave struggle with you Bernadette I would simply stay away. Or at the very least have a good conversation with a good Catholic priest about it.
Quote from: Melkor on September 13, 2023, 03:43:01 PMOr at the very least have a good conversation with a good Catholic priest about it.
This is exactly what I would do, incorporating the above:
At least once, I would travel the 3 hours to the Latin Mass location, perhaps staying overnight in a nearby hotel on Saturday. Beforehand, I would make arrangements to see the TLM priest while I was there on Sunday, explaining that I come from far away, and that I may or may not be able to regularly make such a trip, due to cost and distance.
I would be frank with him about my discouragement and concerns for the validity of the Mass, your spiritual experience, the sincerity of the priest, etc. Wait for his advice.
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on September 12, 2023, 11:03:44 AMI'm sorry that you're stranded away from the Traditional Mass...and that your local parish is such a source of heresy and pain. Certainly, don't assist at the "Mass" there. Nothing good seems to be happening in that place, and you'll only risk your faith and sanity to stay.
I know there's no TLM near you -- are there any other options? Eastern Catholics? Even Eastern Orthodox would be the valid body and blood of Our Lord, though we cannot receive at their liturgy. No, it isn't your patrimony as a Western Christian, but at least it is Our Lord and I've never seen an Orthodox priest spread modernism.
Nope that's a very stupid thing to do. While the Orthodox may seem reverent and all that (I'm sure they are) they are in schism from the Church and to attend their 'Masses' is undoubtedly a grave sin.
Quote from: Bonaventure on September 11, 2023, 09:42:47 AMIt is not a form of deception.
Fair enough IMO, if you find value in it, each to his own, nevertheless:
I think to further specify, there was a 'Eucharistic Adoration Livestream' advertised once, and that one is very problematic, as your only seeing an image of the host which appears as simply unleavened bread because Christ's 'Real Presence' is not applicable to those senses.
So this kind of development as I noticed during the 'lockdowns' troubled me very much, I see it as a subtle way that we can be robbed of the Sacraments while pretending everything is fine when it's not.
Furthermore, our Politicians and others who do not believe in or understand the 'Real Presence' view it as a perfect substitute and thus promote it, if the Priest believes in the 'Real Presence' they likewise would not view it as a substitute either IMO, so what is it exactly? I don't know, and if you find value in it so be it, but I consider it dangerous grounds, for it can deceive, it's like you are finding such value in it because it's as if you are there, so all those same emotions and feelings present themselves making it valuable, but at the end of the day, you are not there and you didn't experience it, like looking at a nature wallpaper on my desktop, I get those feelings, but a cheapening is involved and nothing like if you watched the sunset for real.
Just like myself being content talking to someone over video call and feeling complete when there is a noticeable cheapening going on, as talking in person is very different. Or talking to you on a forum, with even less senses available.
Of course, the forum is the only medium through which I could talk to you people, making conversation possible that otherwise would be impossible, the anonymity also helps to discuss things with people which otherwise would not be discussed (protection from reprisals and retribution by dishonest and underhanded people), but there is still a cheapening involved.
Quote from: Bonaventure on September 11, 2023, 09:42:47 AMWe 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.
Yup. Just wanted to mention those thoughts.
God Bless
Quote from: Bernadette on September 12, 2023, 08:39:11 AMI did confront him, and he lost it and yelled at me.
That's sad, I've been chewed out before too if it's any consolation, nevertheless, glad that you tried. On a positive note, people don't generally lose their temper unless they have insecurities.
God Bless
Here is a quote on the necessary intention for a valid Consecration in the Mass.
QuoteMoral Theology: A Complete Course, John A. McHough, O.P. And Charles Callan, O.P.
V-II. pg. 663.
b) Duties as regards Valid Consecration.-Internally, there must be the intention (actual or virtual) of acting in the name of Christ, and of effecting what the words of consecration signify; and hence a merely narrative recitation of the form is insufficient. This actual or virtual intention must also determine the individual matter to be consecrated, and hence a host placed on the corporal is not consecrated if the priest neither saw it nor took it up for consecration.
It would be highly doubtful if the above mentioned priest had the intention of "effecting what the words signify", especially since he doesn't believe that they signify what they do.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 15, 2023, 04:48:13 PMHere is a quote on the necessary intention for a valid Consecration in the Mass.
QuoteMoral Theology: A Complete Course, John A. McHough, O.P. And Charles Callan, O.P.
V-II. pg. 663.
b) Duties as regards Valid Consecration.-Internally, there must be the intention (actual or virtual) of acting in the name of Christ, and of effecting what the words of consecration signify; and hence a merely narrative recitation of the form is insufficient. This actual or virtual intention must also determine the individual matter to be consecrated, and hence a host placed on the corporal is not consecrated if the priest neither saw it nor took it up for consecration.
It would be highly doubtful if the above mentioned priest had the intention of "effecting what the words signify", especially since he doesn't believe that they signify what they do.
20 years of invalid Communions. :'(
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 15, 2023, 04:48:13 PMIt would be highly doubtful if the above mentioned priest had the intention of "effecting what the words signify", especially since he doesn't believe that they signify what they do.
Remember too the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano ), this Priest no longer believed, yet the formula was uncharged and the Eucharist was still valid as testament by the miracle.
(Also something else I just realized with the Miracle of Lanciano I never knew before, he probably very much disbelieved because being of the Byzantine rite he would have likely believed that valid matter needed to be leavened bread and not unleavened bread).
Furthermore, if private and internal intent/disposition alone were so crucial, then this is a near impossible standard, we can all be second guessing at any point. Someone who believes today could doubt tomorrow, unless there is a Eucharistic Miracle where the 'accidents' also change, then none of us can be 100% sure, we can only do the best we can (unchanged formula) with the available options, have faith and let Christ take care of the rest.
Quote from: Bernadette on September 15, 2023, 05:09:18 PM20 years of invalid Communions. :'(
I wouldn't be too quick to say that, you cannot be 100% sure anyway unless the formula was changed, you can only be better safe than sorry IMO, therefore opting for the best available options and you had the same Priest for 20 years? I thought the Priests moved around different Churches after a certain amount of time?
God Bless
This priest has indeed been here for nearly 20 years. Other priests have come and gone, but this one has remained.
Quote from: Bonaventure on September 12, 2023, 09:05:57 AMQuote from: andy on September 12, 2023, 08:37:17 AMIf 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.
Why not?
What James says is 10000x more of importance - a claim with 100% probability of an invalid Mass and he gets a pass.
What I say, that he is morally obliged to do something about it.
So who is a coward here?
She isn't obliged to report this under pain of any kind of sin; it isn't the laity's role to tell the bishops what to do, or how to do their job. Also, given the events in the Church in the last 60 + years, it would be a case of the hen going to the foxes to report a problem of missing chickens in the hen house.
These guys are not innocent babes in the woods.
Bernadette,
Quote20 years of invalid Communions. :'(
Since you intended to receive Holy Communion; even if they were not consecrated, you would still be making a spiritual communion, and the graces that come with that.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 16, 2023, 07:44:51 AMShe isn't obliged to report this under pain of any kind of sin; it isn't the laity's role to tell the bishops what to do, or how to do their job. Also, given the events in the Church in the last 60 + years, it would be a case of the hen's going to the foxes to report a problem of missing chickens in the hen house.
These guys are not innocent babes in the woods.
For some reason this quote calls to mind Stephen Brady and Roman Catholic Faithful. He ended up pretty broken after fighting the fags and pedophiles for years when he figured out JPII was the problem. He lost his son too, I believe, but his final writings about the disgust he had for Rome were poignant.
edit: "We were privileged to receive the sage advice of holy priests such as Fr. John Hardon, Fr. Charles Fiore, Fr. Peter Mascari, and the legendary Fr. Malachi Martin," Mr. Brady explained. "Yet, we closed our doors after we became convinced that clerical corruption could not be fought simply on a piecemeal basis on a local level; rather, it became clear that the greater part of the post-conciliar Church had lost the Faith. We urged our supporters to attend the Traditional Mass whenever possible, to recite the daily Rosary, to live the life of grace and to pray very hard for the reform of the Church." (RCF's "goodbye letter"
Mr. Pat Omlor in one of his early newsletters, "INTERDUM" explained that the systematic demolition going on in the Church was not the result of isolated "abuses" (as Conservative Catholics liked to describe these events), but the result of a very coordinated plan put into place by the highest authorities in the Church, with the set purpose of replacing the Catholic faith with a new different set of beliefs; and once one comes to this realization, everything that has happened in the last few years comes into focus perfectly and logically. It was and is the installation of a new and false religion in the place of the Catholic Church, a diabolical plan already announced by the high circles of freemasonry in the 19th C.
God forbid.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 16, 2023, 07:44:51 AMShe isn't obliged to report this under pain of any kind of sin; it isn't the laity's role to tell the bishops what to do, or how to do their job. Also, given the events in the Church in the last 60 + years, it would be a case of the hen going to the foxes to report a problem of missing chickens in the hen house.
These guys are not innocent babes in the woods.
I did not suggest that she should do that. I was talking about James who is 100% sure that there is a positive sacrilege going on.
Also, you say that we as laity cannot objectively judge that certain actions/in-actions are under pain of sin?
Andy,
QuoteI did not suggest that she should do that. I was talking about James who is 100% sure that there is a positive sacrilege going on.
My apologies, I misunderstood your post.
QuoteAlso, you say that we as laity cannot objectively judge that certain actions/in-actions are under pain of sin?
I say that we can and we do so all the time, for example a politician that votes for infanticide.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 11, 2023, 05:02:13 PMAndy,
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.
The judgment that the priest makes is distinct from the sacramental intention, just as the matter and form are distinct from the intetion.
What is requied for a valid intention is the same for all the sacraments, namely, the intention to do what the Church does. The requisite intenton only requires that they intend to perform the ritual (or say the requisite words) in a serious (non joking) manner. If a person intends to baptize, or intents to say Mass, or intents to ordain a priest, that alone suffices, regardless of what he personally believes is concerning the sacrament itself. For example, the Holy Office confirmd that a person can explicitly deny that baptism washes away original sin, and even publicly affirm, just before administering the sacrament, that it will have no effect on the soul of the one baptized, that it will not prevent him from having the requisite intention. The Holy Office later said the same reasoning applies to all the sacraments.
The idea that a priest must believe in transubstantiation to offer a valid Mass is one of the errors that
originated the Traditional movement after Vatican II.
Hi Bernadette, I recently stopped attending the local NO a few months ago. I attended two SSPX masses during that time and it made me think that their position on not attending the NO was correct. I have struggled with the mass obligation stance for a while but the NO is just so bad for our faith. I recently had a baby and I don't want my kids exposed to that. I don't have a TLM mass nearby, it'll be a 3.5 hr drive to the city for one, and hopefully, my husband can drive us this winter or next year. He's been really busy with our house so it's not possible this year. He's not Catholic so it makes it even harder but i'll do everything i can do teach our kids the faith. I'm a recent convert to the faith by the way and I was looking into Catholicism around 2021.
Half a year ago, I would have thought that not going to mass (including NO) was bad but now, I don't think I can even go to an indult from what I know now. I'm glad we have livestream masses, missals, forums, and information online because it seems like it's going to get worse.
C.R.
You are correct as to the "minimum-intention" as it relates to the Sacrament of Baptism; this is not the case as in the sacrament of the Eucharist and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, here is a pre-Vatican II morals theology manual:
QuoteMoral Theology: A Complete Course, John A. McHough, O.P. And Charles Callan, O.P.
V-II. pg. 663.
b) Duties as regards Valid Consecration.-Internally, there must be the intention (actual or virtual) of acting in the name of Christ, and of effecting what the words of consecration signify; and hence a merely narrative recitation of the form is insufficient. This actual or virtual intention must also determine the individual matter to be consecrated, and hence a host placed on the corporal is not consecrated if the priest neither saw it nor took it up for consecration.
If a priest were to pronounce the words of Consecration in the manner of a narrative tone as is indicated by the N.O.M. There is a serious doubt as to the validity of the sacrament, as the original authors of the Ottaviani Intervention noted back in 1968:
QuoteThe narrative mode is now emphasized by the formula "narratio institutionis" (no. 55d)
and repeated by the definition of the anamnesis, in which it is said that "The Church recalls
the memory of Christ Himself" (no. 556).
In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of the words of
Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of modifying the modus significandi of the
words of Consecration. The consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the
constituents of a historical narrative and no longer enunciated as expressing the categorical
and affirmative judgment uttered by Him in whose Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus
Meum" (not, "Hoc est Corpus Christi").1
Which the said authors also added this note:
Quote8 The words of Consecration as inserted in the context or the Novus Ordo can be valid by virtue of the minister's intention. They could also not be valid because they are no longer so ex vi verborum, or, more precisely, by virtue of the modus signifcandi they had in the Mass up to the present time.
Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo with the intention of "doing what the Church does" consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it.
Just recently Cardinal Arthur Roche of the Dicastery of Divine Worship stated that the "theology of the Church has changed in regards to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass":
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdl-roche-says-latin-mass-needs-to-be-restricted-because-the-theology-of-the-church-has-changed/
QuoteCdl. Roche says Latin Mass needs to be restricted because the 'theology of the Church has changed'
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — Defending the increasing restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass, Cardinal Arthur Roche – who leads the Vatican's Congregation (now Dicastery) for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments – stated that "the theology of the Church has changed."
Speaking on BBC Radio 4 for a program aired March 19, Roche defended the restrictions on the Traditional Mass, which both he and Pope Francis have implemented since July 2021.
"The theology of the Church has changed," argued Roche. "Whereas before the priest represented, at a distance, all the people – they were channeled through this person who alone was celebrating the Mass."
Now, though, Roche stated that "it is not only the priest who celebrates the liturgy but also those who are baptized with him, and that is an enormous statement to make."
Moments prior to this, Roche's comments were pre-empted by papal biographer Austen Ivereigh, who argued that those devoted to the Traditional Mass had "become a movement undermining the Second Vatican Council." Hence, said Ivereigh, the restrictions were necessary "to put a limit, to put borders, not to suppress it, but to put it back into the hands of the bishops."....
Apart from the fact that "the theology of the Church" cannot change without changing the faith, the fact that the N.O.M. Represents an altogether new, different, non-Catholic , but rather an Ecumenical and Protestant one, so has the signification of the new rite of the Mass which is no longer Catholic but Ecumenical and Protestant.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 12, 2023, 04:54:19 PMQuote from: OCLittleFlower on September 12, 2023, 11:03:44 AMI know there's no TLM near you -- are there any other options? Eastern Catholics? Even Eastern Orthodox would be the valid body and blood of Our Lord, though we cannot receive at their liturgy. No, it isn't your patrimony as a Western Christian, but at least it is Our Lord and I've never seen an Orthodox priest spread modernism.
That would be partaking in the worship of non-Catholics, and that is a Mortal Sin. That is definitely not an option.
Quote from: Melkor on September 13, 2023, 05:31:56 PMQuote from: OCLittleFlower on September 12, 2023, 11:03:44 AMI'm sorry that you're stranded away from the Traditional Mass...and that your local parish is such a source of heresy and pain. Certainly, don't assist at the "Mass" there. Nothing good seems to be happening in that place, and you'll only risk your faith and sanity to stay.
I know there's no TLM near you -- are there any other options? Eastern Catholics? Even Eastern Orthodox would be the valid body and blood of Our Lord, though we cannot receive at their liturgy. No, it isn't your patrimony as a Western Christian, but at least it is Our Lord and I've never seen an Orthodox priest spread modernism.
Nope that's a very stupid thing to do. While the Orthodox may seem reverent and all that (I'm sure they are) they are in schism from the Church and to attend their 'Masses' is undoubtedly a grave sin.
They do have 7 valid sacraments, correct? They aren't Protestant. Given the ongoing heresies and modernist developments in the Roman church, lately ordained women and blessing gay marriages, the Orthodox are asking who is actually in schism and who is not? They haven't changed in 2000 years while the Roman church is unrecognizable.
Their tradition is vastly different. The give dulia to BVM but not hyper-dulia since they confuse it with latria. Mariology, the Rosary, Fatima and Marian feast days are viewed as Roman new developments. If you join, you can't practice these devotions openly. Also, you cannot partake of their sacraments without taking instruction and initiation rites first.
Quote from: lauermar on November 28, 2023, 09:20:43 PMThey aren't Protestant
They aren't descended from the European heretic tradition known as "protestantism," but they are heretics. Just like protestants...
Lauremar on the so called Orthodox "churches":
QuoteThey do have 7 valid sacraments, correct? They aren't Protestant. Given the ongoing heresies and modernist developments in the Roman church, lately ordained women and blessing gay marriages, the Orthodox are asking who is actually in schism and who is not? They haven't changed in 2000 years while the Roman church is unrecognizable.
The Orthodox have 7 valid sacraments, but they profess a false faith. The prohibition of Catholics to participate in non-Catholic sacraments is a divine precept, not a Church discipline law. By participating in these sacraments, you are proclaiming that the Orthodox are the true Church and the Catholic Church is a false one.
QuoteTheir tradition is vastly different. The give dulia to BVM but not hyper-dulia since they confuse it with latria. Mariology, the Rosary, Fatima and Marian feast days are viewed as Roman new developments. If you join, you can't practice these devotions openly. Also, you cannot partake of their sacraments without taking instruction and initiation rites first.
And in many cases you will be required to be re-baptized and renounce the "errors" of the Catholic Church, such as the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son; the infallibility of the Pope; Purgatory; and of course true devotion to Our Blessed Mother. They do not "confuse" anything; they know what the Catholic Church teaches and why, but they have hardened their hearts against God's revelation.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 01, 2023, 11:10:56 AMIn short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of the words of
Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of modifying the modus significandi of the
words of Consecration. The consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the
constituents of a historical narrative and no longer enunciated as expressing the categorical
and affirmative judgment uttered by Him in whose Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus
Meum" (not, "Hoc est Corpus Christi").1
This would appear to be one of the misunderstandings or points that were "fixed" ?
The OI was a point in process, not a final judgement...
It should be noted that the Ottaviani Interention... "cast doubt on the orthodoxy of the Mass of Paul VI, which had been promulgated by the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969,
though the definitive text, which took account of some of the criticisms of the Short Critical Study, had not yet appeared.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention
New and Traditional side-by-side
A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TEXTS OF THE TRADITIONAL MISSAL AND THE NEW MISSAL OF 2011
https://lms.org.uk/missals
Santantonio,
QuoteThis would appear to be one of the misunderstandings or points that were "fixed" ?
The OI was a point in process, not a final judgement...
The OI was based on the final draft of the N.O.M.
QuoteIt should be noted that the Ottaviani Interention... "cast doubt on the orthodoxy of the Mass of Paul VI, which had been promulgated by the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969, though the definitive text, which took account of some of the criticisms of the Short Critical Study, had not yet appeared.
Yes, #7 of the G.I.R.M. Was modified, since it gave a Protestant definition of the Mass; but the new definition was also not a Catholic one, but a masterfully ambiguous one, where the authors were careful not to give the Catholic definition of the Mass, while appearing to do so.
The text of the Mass remained the same as the "Critical Study" had given its unfavorable assessment of; and summarized very well by the "Introduction" signed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci:
Quotethe Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
QuoteQuotethe Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
The Novus Ordo Mass isn't valid then, is it? How can it be if it represents a "striking departure from the theology of the Mass ...."?
The Conciliarists are quite open about the NO Mass not being the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because they describe the NO Mass as 'the People of God gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist with the priest presiding'.
Sometimes all anyone has to do is realise that the Conciliarists mean what they say.
Quote from: lauermar on November 28, 2023, 09:20:43 PMThey aren't Protestant.
According to the Tradition of the Church, they (the Orthodox) are heretics.
QuoteAccording to the Tradition of the Church, they (the Orthodox) are heretics.
They allow 2 divorces. That's heresy.
Quote from: james03 on April 02, 2024, 08:22:49 AMQuoteAccording to the Tradition of the Church, they (the Orthodox) are heretics.
They allow 2 divorces. That's heresy.
Three; but what is the difference? Once you admit the principle that a valid, consummated marriage is dissolvable, then there is no real reason not to allow the dissolution of any number.