Traditio Custodes and the Sunday Obligation

[LausTibiChriste]

I do not believe that the same God whose name is Mercy -- He who created all of us and died to redeem us -- will require perfect knowledge of the "right" and "wrong" paths in these extraordinarily challenging and confusing times, when true leaders are scarce and courage in a leader is scarcer.  He will not punish us for misjudgments that were made sincerely and imperfectly, especially since we're having to do so much self-navigation.

This perfectly sums it all up.

[Christina_S]

I do not believe that the same God whose name is Mercy -- He who created all of us and died to redeem us -- will require perfect knowledge of the "right" and "wrong" paths in these extraordinarily challenging and confusing times, when true leaders are scarce and courage in a leader is scarcer.  He will not punish us for misjudgments that were made sincerely and imperfectly, especially since we're having to do so much self-navigation.

"But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd." Matt. 9:36

[LausTibiChriste]

I do not believe that the same God whose name is Mercy -- He who created all of us and died to redeem us -- will require perfect knowledge of the "right" and "wrong" paths in these extraordinarily challenging and confusing times, when true leaders are scarce and courage in a leader is scarcer.  He will not punish us for misjudgments that were made sincerely and imperfectly, especially since we're having to do so much self-navigation.

"But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd." Matt. 9:36

Boom

[Elizabeth.2]

On the few random days I have to work on Sunday, I still attend the NO, albeit under protest. I hate it with every fiber of my being and highly question its validity, but for now I don't know if I can 'give myself permission' to skip out a Mass on Sundays that for all intents and purposes has been proclaimed by the Church, even if it is fake and gay. Usually I just sit at the back, pray my Rosary and don't participate at all. I'm just there for the attendance checkmark lol.

It's a struggle for sure.

I was in that situation, and will be again.  I have made so many mistakes with God's 1st Commandment and messed up, I don't dare skip my Sunday obligation.  The attacks of scruples and dread and fear just mess me right up too badly
BUT, we went to a family celebration of life deal in Yankee territory this past summer.  The Jesuit "priests" are friends with the family.  I went to a stripped out church (no BVM to be seen) and the guy actually had the people recite Grace Before Meals as the consecration I kid you not.  You bet I prayed the Sorrowful Mysteries!!  At the party the old ladies were saying how great is "Father" on the Litergy - he's written 8 books. 

[LausTibiChriste]

On the few random days I have to work on Sunday, I still attend the NO, albeit under protest. I hate it with every fiber of my being and highly question its validity, but for now I don't know if I can 'give myself permission' to skip out a Mass on Sundays that for all intents and purposes has been proclaimed by the Church, even if it is fake and gay. Usually I just sit at the back, pray my Rosary and don't participate at all. I'm just there for the attendance checkmark lol.

It's a struggle for sure.

I was in that situation, and will be again.  I have made so many mistakes with God's 1st Commandment and messed up, I don't dare skip my Sunday obligation.  The attacks of scruples and dread and fear just mess me right up too badly
BUT, we went to a family celebration of life deal in Yankee territory this past summer.  The Jesuit "priests" are friends with the family.  I went to a stripped out church (no BVM to be seen) and the guy actually had the people recite Grace Before Meals as the consecration I kid you not.  You bet I prayed the Sorrowful Mysteries!!  At the party the old ladies were saying how great is "Father" on the Litergy - he's written 8 books.

Awful. I'm relatively lucky in that the NO Im forced to go to is "by the books" so in Latin and Ad Orientem...

If the Mass was ever blasphemous I'd walk out

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Awful. I'm relatively lucky in that the NO Im forced to go to is "by the books" so in Latin and Ad Orientem...

This hardly exists anywhere.  There are probably fewer of these than there are actually Tridentine Masses.

[LausTibiChriste]

Yup. Very rare...yet there's at least 2 in my diocese

[Christina_S]

... and the guy actually had the people recite Grace Before Meals as the consecration I kid you not.

[Lynne]

I was in that situation, and will be again.  I have made so many mistakes with God's 1st Commandment and messed up, I don't dare skip my Sunday obligation.  The attacks of scruples and dread and fear just mess me right up too badly
BUT, we went to a family celebration of life deal in Yankee territory this past summer.  The Jesuit "priests" are friends with the family.  I went to a stripped out church (no BVM to be seen) and the guy actually had the people recite Grace Before Meals as the consecration I kid you not.  You bet I prayed the Sorrowful Mysteries!!  At the party the old ladies were saying how great is "Father" on the Litergy - he's written 8 books.

[Gardener]

I still don't know what we would do. My husband and I are at a bit of a stalemate: I won't go back to the NO without kicking and screaming, and he won't go to the SSPX because he views them as schismatic (and yes, he's seen debates and the Lefebvre documentary; he remains unconvinced).

Even if a group of TLM-goers were to suddenly show up at the local NO and gradually take over the music ministry/parish council/finance council/etc., I doubt it would be good for most of the souls involved. The more I look at the NO (having attended the TLM almost exclusively for over a year), the more I think it was a failed experiment.

Re: the bold.

This is very simple to resolve. Does he or does he not consider their marriages and confessions as valid prior to the actions of Francis extending universal faculties to them?

If not, then they cannot be in schism since it's an issue of faculties which only CATHOLIC clergy are subject to.

If so, then it begs the question on how or why a putative pope can even remotely extend signs of communion to a group in schism.

He doesn't get to have it both ways. They are either in schism or not. And if so, their marriages and confessions are valid sacraments.

I won't get into the issue of supplied jurisdiction etc., as that's more convoluted.

But it's a fact that schismatic groups such as the Orthodox are recognized as having valid confessions and marriages.

So he gets to choose from reality. He doesn't get to choose from the 1990's era of FSSP-pushed boogeymen that are made up fantasy where they get to have their cake and eat it too.

[Christina_S]

I still don't know what we would do. My husband and I are at a bit of a stalemate: I won't go back to the NO without kicking and screaming, and he won't go to the SSPX because he views them as schismatic (and yes, he's seen debates and the Lefebvre documentary; he remains unconvinced).

Even if a group of TLM-goers were to suddenly show up at the local NO and gradually take over the music ministry/parish council/finance council/etc., I doubt it would be good for most of the souls involved. The more I look at the NO (having attended the TLM almost exclusively for over a year), the more I think it was a failed experiment.

Re: the bold.

This is very simple to resolve. Does he or does he not consider their marriages and confessions as valid prior to the actions of Francis extending universal faculties to them?

If not, then they cannot be in schism since it's an issue of faculties which only CATHOLIC clergy are subject to.

If so, then it begs the question on how or why a putative pope can even remotely extend signs of communion to a group in schism.

He doesn't get to have it both ways. They are either in schism or not. And if so, their marriages and confessions are valid sacraments.

I won't get into the issue of supplied jurisdiction etc., as that's more convoluted.

But it's a fact that schismatic groups such as the Orthodox are recognized as having valid confessions and marriages.

So he gets to choose from reality. He doesn't get to choose from the 1990's era of FSSP-pushed boogeymen that are made up fantasy where they get to have their cake and eat it too.

He'll admit that their sacraments are valid, but not licit. They're not in communion with Rome. He said it's just like how going to an Orthodox liturgy when there's a Catholic church next door would not fulfill your Sunday obligation. He doesn't want to be out of communion with the visible Church: ubi Petrus est and all.

[Gardener]

I still don't know what we would do. My husband and I are at a bit of a stalemate: I won't go back to the NO without kicking and screaming, and he won't go to the SSPX because he views them as schismatic (and yes, he's seen debates and the Lefebvre documentary; he remains unconvinced).

Even if a group of TLM-goers were to suddenly show up at the local NO and gradually take over the music ministry/parish council/finance council/etc., I doubt it would be good for most of the souls involved. The more I look at the NO (having attended the TLM almost exclusively for over a year), the more I think it was a failed experiment.

Re: the bold.

This is very simple to resolve. Does he or does he not consider their marriages and confessions as valid prior to the actions of Francis extending universal faculties to them?

If not, then they cannot be in schism since it's an issue of faculties which only CATHOLIC clergy are subject to.

If so, then it begs the question on how or why a putative pope can even remotely extend signs of communion to a group in schism.

He doesn't get to have it both ways. They are either in schism or not. And if so, their marriages and confessions are valid sacraments.

I won't get into the issue of supplied jurisdiction etc., as that's more convoluted.

But it's a fact that schismatic groups such as the Orthodox are recognized as having valid confessions and marriages.

So he gets to choose from reality. He doesn't get to choose from the 1990's era of FSSP-pushed boogeymen that are made up fantasy where they get to have their cake and eat it too.

He'll admit that their sacraments are valid, but not licit. They're not in communion with Rome. He said it's just like how going to an Orthodox liturgy when there's a Catholic church next door would not fulfill your Sunday obligation. He doesn't want to be out of communion with the visible Church: ubi Petrus est and all.

"He'll admit their sacraments are valid but not licit".

There's no such thing as illicit Sacraments for schismatics. Illicit is a legal term -- literally "illegal". It pertains to canon law and only applies to Catholics at least as far as concerns the two Sacraments I brought up. Schismatics are NOT Catholic, even if they put on the most externally "Catholic" liturgy ever, so the idea of faculties for their marriages or confessions is moot since faculties are an internal issue.

For example, see this discussion: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74027/do-roman-catholics-regard-orthodox-sacraments-as-valid-and-or-licit

I brought up marriage and confession because aside from particular instances of extraordinary circumstances (supplied jurisdiction, state of emergency, etc.), one needs faculties to even ordinarily, validly celebrate(confession)/witness(marriage) them. As such, they are an easy litmus test for if someone actually understands the issue.

So again, prior to Francis extending universal faculties to them, does he believe their marriages and confessions valid? Whether or not they were licit is not the question.

They are in communion with Rome, as there is no such thing as partial communion. Communion is binary. One cannot have their cannoli and eat it too, Rome.

An Orthodox liturgy never fulfills ones Sunday obligation. It's not a Catholic liturgy (due to the lack of communion with Rome). If there is no Catholic liturgy available then the obligation ceases. Yet, we have been told over and over that the SSPX fulfills one's obligation (even if they try to couch it in scare tactic phrases like "in strict terms", "without an intention to engage in a schimastic mentality", etc.). This is only possible with a Catholic liturgy. Bar none, full stop, all that and a bag of chips, etc.

The problem isn't your husband per se, I'm not bashing him, but Rome's unwillingness to not itself paint the argument into a corner. Unfortunately, far too many just smile and nod when "Rome" says something, without looking at the logical reality of it. To be honest, I'm not even sure if the men chairing the congregations which provide the answers themselves fully understand the stupidity they publish.

However, the SSPX is most certainly an option and they are most certainly not in schism. Were they in schism, the aforementioned issues of valid confessions and marriage would be a non-issue since there would be no mechanism by which they would need faculties. In fact, none of their Sacraments would have a character of being illicit, because they would fall outside the purview of canon law which is an internal matter.

[Tennessean]

On the few random days I have to work on Sunday, I still attend the NO, albeit under protest. I hate it with every fiber of my being and highly question its validity, but for now I don't know if I can 'give myself permission' to skip out a Mass on Sundays that for all intents and purposes has been proclaimed by the Church, even if it is fake and gay. Usually I just sit at the back, pray my Rosary and don't participate at all. I'm just there for the attendance checkmark lol.

It's a struggle for sure.

I was in that situation, and will be again.  I have made so many mistakes with God's 1st Commandment and messed up, I don't dare skip my Sunday obligation.  The attacks of scruples and dread and fear just mess me right up too badly
BUT, we went to a family celebration of life deal in Yankee territory this past summer.  The Jesuit "priests" are friends with the family.  I went to a stripped out church (no BVM to be seen) and the guy actually had the people recite Grace Before Meals as the consecration I kid you not.  You bet I prayed the Sorrowful Mysteries!!  At the party the old ladies were saying how great is "Father" on the Litergy - he's written 8 books.

Awful. I'm relatively lucky in that the NO Im forced to go to is "by the books" so in Latin and Ad Orientem...

If the Mass was ever blasphemous I'd walk out

How do you find these?


Ah, how nice, a search turns up that bishops are banning it or suspending priests who do it.

[Christina_S]

"He'll admit their sacraments are valid but not licit".

There's no such thing as illicit Sacraments for schismatics. Illicit is a legal term -- literally "illegal". It pertains to canon law and only applies to Catholics at least as far as concerns the two Sacraments I brought up. Schismatics are NOT Catholic, even if they put on the most externally "Catholic" liturgy ever, so the idea of faculties for their marriages or confessions is moot since faculties are an internal issue.

For example, see this discussion: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74027/do-roman-catholics-regard-orthodox-sacraments-as-valid-and-or-licit

I brought up marriage and confession because aside from particular instances of extraordinary circumstances (supplied jurisdiction, state of emergency, etc.), one needs faculties to even ordinarily, validly celebrate(confession)/witness(marriage) them. As such, they are an easy litmus test for if someone actually understands the issue.

So again, prior to Francis extending universal faculties to them, does he believe their marriages and confessions valid? Whether or not they were licit is not the question.

They are in communion with Rome, as there is no such thing as partial communion. Communion is binary. One cannot have their cannoli and eat it too, Rome.

An Orthodox liturgy never fulfills ones Sunday obligation. It's not a Catholic liturgy (due to the lack of communion with Rome). If there is no Catholic liturgy available then the obligation ceases. Yet, we have been told over and over that the SSPX fulfills one's obligation (even if they try to couch it in scare tactic phrases like "in strict terms", "without an intention to engage in a schimastic mentality", etc.). This is only possible with a Catholic liturgy. Bar none, full stop, all that and a bag of chips, etc.

The problem isn't your husband per se, I'm not bashing him, but Rome's unwillingness to not itself paint the argument into a corner. Unfortunately, far too many just smile and nod when "Rome" says something, without looking at the logical reality of it. To be honest, I'm not even sure if the men chairing the congregations which provide the answers themselves fully understand the stupidity they publish.

However, the SSPX is most certainly an option and they are most certainly not in schism. Were they in schism, the aforementioned issues of valid confessions and marriage would be a non-issue since there would be no mechanism by which they would need faculties. In fact, none of their Sacraments would have a character of being illicit, because they would fall outside the purview of canon law which is an internal matter.

So to clarify what you're saying:

Their sacraments are considered valid but not licit by some  >> "Licit" is a term that can only apply to those within in the Church's governance >> The SSPX must be part of the Church.

[Gardener]

"He'll admit their sacraments are valid but not licit".

There's no such thing as illicit Sacraments for schismatics. Illicit is a legal term -- literally "illegal". It pertains to canon law and only applies to Catholics at least as far as concerns the two Sacraments I brought up. Schismatics are NOT Catholic, even if they put on the most externally "Catholic" liturgy ever, so the idea of faculties for their marriages or confessions is moot since faculties are an internal issue.

For example, see this discussion: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74027/do-roman-catholics-regard-orthodox-sacraments-as-valid-and-or-licit

I brought up marriage and confession because aside from particular instances of extraordinary circumstances (supplied jurisdiction, state of emergency, etc.), one needs faculties to even ordinarily, validly celebrate(confession)/witness(marriage) them. As such, they are an easy litmus test for if someone actually understands the issue.

So again, prior to Francis extending universal faculties to them, does he believe their marriages and confessions valid? Whether or not they were licit is not the question.

They are in communion with Rome, as there is no such thing as partial communion. Communion is binary. One cannot have their cannoli and eat it too, Rome.

An Orthodox liturgy never fulfills ones Sunday obligation. It's not a Catholic liturgy (due to the lack of communion with Rome). If there is no Catholic liturgy available then the obligation ceases. Yet, we have been told over and over that the SSPX fulfills one's obligation (even if they try to couch it in scare tactic phrases like "in strict terms", "without an intention to engage in a schimastic mentality", etc.). This is only possible with a Catholic liturgy. Bar none, full stop, all that and a bag of chips, etc.

The problem isn't your husband per se, I'm not bashing him, but Rome's unwillingness to not itself paint the argument into a corner. Unfortunately, far too many just smile and nod when "Rome" says something, without looking at the logical reality of it. To be honest, I'm not even sure if the men chairing the congregations which provide the answers themselves fully understand the stupidity they publish.

However, the SSPX is most certainly an option and they are most certainly not in schism. Were they in schism, the aforementioned issues of valid confessions and marriage would be a non-issue since there would be no mechanism by which they would need faculties. In fact, none of their Sacraments would have a character of being illicit, because they would fall outside the purview of canon law which is an internal matter.

So to clarify what you're saying:

Their sacraments are considered valid but not licit by some  >> "Licit" is a term that can only apply to those within in the Church's governance >> The SSPX must be part of the Church.

Exactly. To bring in licit vs illicit is an organizationally internal framework.

Moreover, the issue of marriages and confessions being invalid can only occur inside the Church assuming usual conditions due to faculties. Simply put, the Church recognizes schismatic groups' marriages and confessions if they retain apostolic succession, such as the Orthodox.