Absent Priest, Valid Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter youkokun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
youkokun said:
Thank you everyone for your thoughtful responses.

I am going to tomorrow’s evening mass. It’ll be Saturday vigil, so they HAVE to have a priest there, and bonus, there will be music! 😛

Even my non-denom-Christian family members are shaking their heads at a woman leading any kind of church service. I’m so glad I’m not the only one who feels this way. I mean, it’s fine for a lady to be a lector or pass out Jesus like any male Catholic, but when she was saying the words that the priest usually says I was thinking “that should be an octave lower” not because I’m sarcastic, but because it felt like my mom was talking. And I know the Church is personified as feminine, but the priesthood is pastoral and paternal in character. For me personally the fact that we call priests “Father” is a big deal.

So if I get this straight, this was technically a valid Communion service and it really was Jesus I partook of, but another go would never hurt.
Click to expand...
In my Parish the consecrated Host is stored in the Tabernacle after the Mass to be distributed to the sick. I received Holy Communion when I was in hospital. Hospital Chaplin’s carry it with them. The Chaplin who came to see me was a priest, but I know nuns who have been hospital Chaplin’s. I think lay people visit people in prison and they can give them Holy Communion. They also visit the sick.

St. Paul said women could pray in the Church. He said they should wear a head covering but according to Catholic commentaries I have read that was to do with custom of the time.
 
Sbyvl said:
No it’s not. Women should not partake in the liturgy other than being in the congregation.
Click to expand...
I respect your right to your own opinion on the matter. Many people find it difficult to accept the greater participation of women in the RCC. However, the Church has determined that this level of activity by women is fully acceptable and now allows women to serve as Lectors, Eucharistic Ministers, religious education teachers, etc. This is not my opinion, but rather the practice of the Church. Primarily, it was found that the limitation was a discipline, not a doctrine and therefore could be changed. (The limitation on the priesthood that prohibits women is doctrine, not discipline, and therefore it cannot be changed.)
 
chefmomster2 said:
I respect your right to your own opinion on the matter. Many people find it difficult to accept the greater participation of women in the RCC. However, the Church has determined that this level of activity by women is fully acceptable and now allows women to serve as Lectors, Eucharistic Ministers, religious education teachers, etc. This is not my opinion, but rather the practice of the Church. Primarily, it was found that the limitation was a discipline, not a doctrine and therefore could be changed. (The limitation on the priesthood that prohibits women is doctrine, not discipline, and therefore it cannot be changed.)
Click to expand...
This is not a matter of opinion, and the Church never changed the law on this. Vatican II was a Council of Apostasy. Its rulings are absolutely null and utterly void. We are not bound by them, and we must avoid them, because V-II was a heretical council. holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html

Women must never serve as “ministers”, nor should any layman.
 
Sbyvl said:
Which “good and holy priest”?
  1. I think I’ll take Saint Paul’s opinion over your apologist, thank you.
  2. If he was “ordained” in the New Rite of Ordination, he’s not a valid priest.
  3. Lay ministry is there because the Freemason Antipope Paul VI put it there.
  4. No, me being upset about women running the “liturgy” doesn’t make it wrong. What makes it wrong is that it goes against 2000 years of tradition.
Click to expand...
So, if Pope Paul VI is a freemason antipope, what is Pope Francis to you? Just asking. :confused:
 
Catholic1954 said:
So, if Pope Paul VI is a freemason antipope, what is Pope Francis to you? Just asking. :confused:
Click to expand...
He too is an antipope. He is also not a bishop, nor even a priest. He was “ordained” in the invalid New Rite of 1969, and therefore is a layman. He is a Modernist, Ecumenist, and relativist. He is an evil man, and is barred by Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio and by divine law from becoming pope. There has not been a valid pope since 1958.
 
Sbyvl said:
He too is an antipope. He is also not a bishop, nor even a priest. He was “ordained” in the invalid New Rite of 1969, and therefore is a layman. He is a Modernist, Ecumenist, and relativist. He is an evil man, and is barred by Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio and by divine law from becoming pope. There has not been a valid pope since 1958.
Click to expand...
Does this mean a considerable number of priests today were not validly ordained?

If so - it doesn’t really matter who gives out Holy Communion, does it?
 
Sbyvl said:
He too is an antipope. He is also not a bishop, nor even a priest. He was “ordained” in the invalid New Rite of 1969, and therefore is a layman. He is a Modernist, Ecumenist, and relativist. He is an evil man, and is barred by Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio and by divine law from becoming pope. There has not been a valid pope since 1958.
Click to expand...
You have posted a link to a Sedevacanist site.
Read the following.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3365744&postcount=30
 
Sbyvl said:
By the way:

The Church states that “The faithful are bound to assist at Mass [and refrain from labor] on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.”. Obviously if there is no valid Mass near by there is no obligation, but a “Communion service” is just a sacrilege, and odds are you can find a lovely TLM or Byzantine Divine Liturgy within a half hour’s drive.
Click to expand...
It is important to distinguish between your own opinions and the stated teachings of the RCC.

You may disagree with the Church’s teachings in this area and others. But, while you may feel it is wrong for the Church to accept women’s participation and the validity of communion services, the question is whether the RCC accepts these practices as valid. It does.

God bless you!
 
minkymurph said:
Does this mean a considerable number of priests today were not validly ordained?

If so - it doesn’t really matter who gives out Holy Communion, does it?
Click to expand...
If he’s not validly ordained, then he’s not a priest. All priests are validly ordained. Do you understand what I’m saying?

Oh, and btw, the Novus Ordo “Communion” is not valid either, so in reality they are just passing out cookies. Unfortunately, a good number of people think these cookies are the Body of Christ, so the principle remains. Women should not hand out communion. They should know their limits.
 
Sbyvl said:
If he’s not validly ordained, then he’s not a priest. All priests are validly ordained. Do you understand what I’m saying?

Oh, and btw, the Novus Ordo “Communion” is not valid either, so in reality they are just passing out cookies. Unfortunately, a good number of people think these cookies are the Body of Christ, so the principle remains. Women should not hand out communion. They should know their limits.
Click to expand...
For the foreseeable future, sedevacantism will not be discussed in the Traditional Catholicism forum. And since sedevacantism was only allowed to be discussed in the Traditional Catholicism forum, it will also not be discussed on any of the CAF forums for the foreseeable future.
 
chefmomster2 said:
For the foreseeable future, sedevacantism will not be discussed in the Traditional Catholicism forum. And since sedevacantism was only allowed to be discussed in the Traditional Catholicism forum, it will also not be discussed on any of the CAF forums for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
  1. CAF is not a Traditional Catholic forum. It is the laughing stock of the online Trad world.
  2. If you want to see a real Trad forum, go to Suscipedomine.com
  3. Sedevacantism will continue to be discussed as it is the only viable option. To be in communion with a false pope is to be outside the Church.
 
Sbyvl said:
Which “good and holy priest”?
  1. I think I’ll take Saint Paul’s opinion over your apologist, thank you.
  2. If he was “ordained” in the New Rite of Ordination, he’s not a valid priest.
  3. Lay ministry is there because the Freemason Antipope Paul VI put it there.
  4. No, me being upset about women running the “liturgy” doesn’t make it wrong. What makes it wrong is that it goes against 2000 years of tradition.
Click to expand...
When were YOU made Pope. You must have been with your judgement of who is and isn’t a priest and who is a pope. So when exactly were you put in charge?
 
Sbyvl said:
  1. CAF is not a Traditional Catholic forum. It is the laughing stock of the online Trad world.
  2. If you want to see a real Trad forum, go to Suscipedomine.com
  3. Sedevacantism will continue to be discussed as it is the only viable option. To be in communion with a false pope is to be outside the Church.
Click to expand...
Making your own rules is outside the Church.
 
adrift said:
When were YOU made Pope. You must have been with your judgement of who is and isn’t a priest and who is a pope. So when exactly were you put in charge?
Click to expand...
I don’t have to be in charge to know that the See of Peter is vacant, or that the new rites are invalid. “Who are you to judge” is not a valid counter-argument.

cmri.org/why-we-believe-the-chair-of-peter-is-vacant.shtml
cmri.org/02-sede-quotes.html
cmri.org/02-answering-objections-sede.html
cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html
cmri.org/02-long-term-vacancy.shtml
 
Sbyvl said:
I don’t have to be in charge to know that the See of Peter is vacant, or that the new rites are invalid. “Who are you to judge” is not a valid counter-argument.

cmri.org/why-we-believe-the-chair-of-peter-is-vacant.shtml
cmri.org/02-sede-quotes.html
cmri.org/02-answering-objections-sede.html
cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html
cmri.org/02-long-term-vacancy.shtml
Click to expand...
You are making a judgement on who is in charge therefore you are making a chuch into yourself instead of following the Church that Jesus said would not be destroyed by satan.
 
youkokun said:
Sorry, I’ve never been to one of these. I have heard of communion services rather than Mass being held on the Friday and Saturday before Easter, but this doesn’t seem to fit the bill.:confused:

A lady led us in praying the act of Contrition (the one with the “grievous fault”) and a couple of opening prayers. Then she read from the Old Testament. Then another lady said the responsorial (…“clean waters upon you, I will wash away all your sins” was our part, which although I know isn’t wrong still feels wrong for me to say) and then the first lady read aloud the alleluia snippet and then the Gospel. I couldn’t pay attention because I thought it was weird that it wasn’t a priest reading it. She closed it in the same way, sat down among us in the pews, and after what felt like five min (probably less) of what was probably supposed to be prayerful silence she stood and let us with the Our Father and petitions, whichever order that was, and then took some host out of the cubby in the wall where the priest normally puts the uneaten consecrated host.

I was praying, “please let it be You, I came here because I wanted to be with You, if it is You please unite me to You” with such uncertainty, I think that my doubt must have caused me to sin. Looking back I guess that host was pre-consecrated, and she wasn’t pretending to be a priest; she didn’t say “the mystery of faith”. But I wasn’t thinking that at the time, I was only hoping it was really Jesus, but afraid because of who was holding Him.

I apologize for all the childish terminology. I was reconciled last Easter, so although I’ve got the words down (unless we switch to Latin or Spanish for the Lamb of God) I’m not 100% familiar yet. I don’t mind going to Mass again–actually, I’m planning to go again tomorrow–but I don’t want to inadvertently disrespect Christ.
Click to expand...
I hope your question was answered because I have a feeling this thread will be pulled.
 
Sbyvl said:
Read the links I posted. I am following well-established Catholic law. Take a look at Cum ex apostolatus officio
Click to expand...
No you are following your own law. I have read your sad links before. You don’t like to follow rules unless they are made up by you. That is proven by your disrespect to this forum. If you can’t follow their rules, why should I believe you follow any?
 
minkymurph said:
I hope your question was answered because I have a feeling this thread will be pulled.
Click to expand...
You are probably right at least one poster will be banned and perhaps just that will be removed. The question is an honest one with many good answers the other 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top