P
pnewton
Guest
As will I, although I would say “if”. There are still a lot of personalities involved that can interfere or stop the process.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, knowing that your attending an illicit mass, simply because you enjoy it, is objectively sinful. The person would be disobeying, simply because he enjoys this mass more than that one, not because of an act of necessity, such as fulfilling your Sunday obligation when there is no other place to go.
How grave is the sin? I really can’t say. You may want to ask a moral theologian that question.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
You should do no such thing if your conscience, whether it’s “properly formed” or not, tells you not to.
S
surritter
Guest
This has nothing to do with it. Receiving on the tongue or hands is a procedural matter. It is not a direct statement about the theological doctrine of the Eucharist. I can understand the discomfort, but you seem to be saying that to receive in the hands is sacrilegious. That would not be thinking with the mind of the Church.
J
JReducation
Guest
What was said was the Ecclesia Suplet does not apply, because there is the necessity is not there. You must have the necessity for supplied jurisdiction. Now, as you clearly and correctly pointed out, there are individual cases in which it does apply. But the allegation of many suspended priests, not just SSPX, is that it applies every time they hear confeession. This is not true. It does not, not if you’re suspended. It only applies when it is necessary for the peninent. The way that canon lawyers interpret this is that there must be grave reason for hearing the confession of the penitent. The fact is that neither the SSPX nor anyone else who is suspended can make a blanket statement and say that the Church supplies everytime.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I think that we’re all over the place here. The question is not the status of the SSPX. We all know that they are suspended and their bishops have no canonical status. That makes their entire ministry very shaky. I don’t necessarily mean sinful. Things can be shaky without being sinful. Though they often go together.
The issue is that the priest told the communicant to receive on the hand. The priest had no right to do so. However, from what I understand, from the communicant himself, is that the priest wanted to empty out the tabernacle because they are closing the church or chapel. That is why he was offering multiple hosts. This is legitimatel Those hosts have to be consumed.
What the priest should have done was to explain to the people that they needed to do this and how he was going to proceed, by asking them to take five or six hosts in their hand and consume them for the good of the Eucharist, which has to be protected and cannot be left abandoned in a closed church or chapel. I’m not talking about closed for the night.
What has happened here is that the OP has not shared all of the information. The chapel was going to be closed long-term. The hosts had to be consumed. The priest needed the help of the communicants. The priest did not explain himself, instead he spoke rudely to the communicant. This shook up the communicant.
That’s the story. There was not clown mass, dancing in the aisles, or chirping birds to the tune of O Come O Come Emmanuel.
When we report, we have to tell the whole story. Otherwise, this is what happens. Good people get hot and bothered under the collar and say things that they would not normally say.
I wish that the OP would tell the whole story so that we can go on with our Christmas preparation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The issue is that the priest told the communicant to receive on the hand. The priest had no right to do so. However, from what I understand, from the communicant himself, is that the priest wanted to empty out the tabernacle because they are closing the church or chapel. That is why he was offering multiple hosts. This is legitimatel Those hosts have to be consumed.
What the priest should have done was to explain to the people that they needed to do this and how he was going to proceed, by asking them to take five or six hosts in their hand and consume them for the good of the Eucharist, which has to be protected and cannot be left abandoned in a closed church or chapel. I’m not talking about closed for the night.
What has happened here is that the OP has not shared all of the information. The chapel was going to be closed long-term. The hosts had to be consumed. The priest needed the help of the communicants. The priest did not explain himself, instead he spoke rudely to the communicant. This shook up the communicant.
That’s the story. There was not clown mass, dancing in the aisles, or chirping birds to the tune of O Come O Come Emmanuel.
When we report, we have to tell the whole story. Otherwise, this is what happens. Good people get hot and bothered under the collar and say things that they would not normally say.
I wish that the OP would tell the whole story so that we can go on with our Christmas preparation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
And who appointed you the mind of the Church?
One thing I disagree with as far as the OP goes, I would not have put myself into such an uncomfortable position. I don’t ask for and I don’t want trouble. And I doubt if Christ does either. As I said before, I vote with my feet and others should do the same. Certainly there should be some other closeby churches where one can fulfill his Sunday obligation.
S
surritter
Guest
Just because I explain a matter doesn’t mean I determined such, silly. Assuming that we are in North America (but it applies in most other locales) the mind of the Church (i.e., the Vatican) allows communicants to receive on the tongue or in the hand. Clear enough for you?
G
gospelofmark
Guest
I love the traditional mass, attended some in San Diego, these were not sspx masses but there is nothing on this earth that compares to that kind of liturgy. I believe in good time the sspx will be back in full communion and since they have preserved those ancient rites they will help the novus ordo masses to come back to a better understanding of what we really have in the catholic church.
B
Bbigam
Guest
Really? Clowns and sugar cookies? I’m sure there’s not a diocese in the world that only has those available. I’m also sure there there are zero “clown masses” and probably zero sugar cookie masses in my whole diocese.
I suppose I would choose SSPX over a clown and sugar cookie “mass” too, if it was the only option… but I highly doubt that will ever be the case.
My parish down the road celebrates the Ordinary Form quite reverently. Father would choke if anyone ever tried to suggest using sugar cookies or clowns in the Mass. So would the bishop and most, if not all, priests in the diocese.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
\ Originally Posted by michaeldaniels View Post
Yeah, but I understand the POV of the OP…if there are no viable choices…which some Diocese do not offer any…then if forced to choose, I will choose the SSPX over clowns and sugar cookies any day…at least the Host is Consecrated Validly\
**Have you ever actually seen clowns or sugar cookies used at mass, michaeldaniels?
Can you tell us when you did and where?
And how many dioceses to your actual knowlege offer no “viable choices”? And what do you mean by “viable choices”?**
Yeah, but I understand the POV of the OP…if there are no viable choices…which some Diocese do not offer any…then if forced to choose, I will choose the SSPX over clowns and sugar cookies any day…at least the Host is Consecrated Validly\
**Have you ever actually seen clowns or sugar cookies used at mass, michaeldaniels?
Can you tell us when you did and where?
And how many dioceses to your actual knowlege offer no “viable choices”? And what do you mean by “viable choices”?**
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
Really…and these things don’t happen…how naive
S
surritter
Guest
Michael,
Bbigam didn’t say those things never happen – re-read the post.
He said that “there’s not a diocese in the world that only has those available.” He also said that “I’m also sure there there are zero “clown masses” and probably zero sugar cookie masses in my whole diocese.”
Be sure about your facts before you post…
Bbigam didn’t say those things never happen – re-read the post.
He said that “there’s not a diocese in the world that only has those available.” He also said that “I’m also sure there there are zero “clown masses” and probably zero sugar cookie masses in my whole diocese.”
Be sure about your facts before you post…
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
I am sure about the facts…it shouldn’t happen at all, and this is just a small…very small example of abuses that take place…and another fact I am sure about is that it NEVER happens at an SSPX Chapel or in more traditional parishes or FSSP Churches…however the status quo is just to let them slide and allow it to happen…no outrage whatsoever, but God Forbid there are some Catholics that prefer the Latin Mass over these abominations and we should be cut off from The Church forever…wake up, the double standard is sickening
S
surritter
Guest
Sigh –
I meant the facts regarding the specific post that you are calling “naive.” Not the fact that those things can and do happen.
I meant the facts regarding the specific post that you are calling “naive.” Not the fact that those things can and do happen.
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
I know…and I am sorry if I came off as coarse to you…it is not you that I was directing my anger at…it is the abuses and the fact that the majority of the Church gives these abuses a free pass while directing their wrath towards traditionalists like the SSPX, which granted is deserving of some of it…but there is an obvious double standard with these things…don’t you think?
S
surritter
Guest
Yes – and I agree with you about the frustration!
But is the solution to leave the mother ship and sail off on your own? If each of us gave up on the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church for various justifiable reasons, then we would be Protestants, right?
So when my local parish started to veer (God help us if they sing “Lord of the Dance” one more time) I simply started attending another local parish which is more in line with orthodox practices. We are not to be vigilantes who get so fed up that we end up causing more division in the Church.
But is the solution to leave the mother ship and sail off on your own? If each of us gave up on the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church for various justifiable reasons, then we would be Protestants, right?
So when my local parish started to veer (God help us if they sing “Lord of the Dance” one more time) I simply started attending another local parish which is more in line with orthodox practices. We are not to be vigilantes who get so fed up that we end up causing more division in the Church.
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
I agree…and I haven’t ever been to a Mass that wasn’t through the local Diocese…I am not affiliated with the SSPX or any group…I refuse to abandon the Church…however, I am sympathetic to their plight and concerns…as well as understand their POV… and I am also aware of all the problems facing us today…I just think there needs to be a greater effort to bring them back into the fold and a larger emphasis on eradicating the other problems I have been so vocal about.
Yes – and I agree with you about the frustration!
But is the solution to leave the mother ship and sail off on your own? If each of us gave up on the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church for various justifiable reasons, then we would be Protestants, right?
So when my local parish started to veer (God help us if they sing “Lord of the Dance” one more time) I simply started attending another local parish which is more in line with orthodox practices. We are not to be vigilantes who get so fed up that we end up causing more division in the Church.
P
pnewton
Guest
Huh? Just see what happens to the people that come here advocating free choice for abortion or women priests. They are opposed at every turn. No, if someone ever posted trying to justify a clown Mass or altered hosts, I have no doubt that they would not find any ally here. This is a very orthodox group here and pretty much anything that is a clear abuse of the Mass is not tolerated.
As to the majority of Catholics in America, I would bet most do not know of the SSPX. I find few who have. I also bet few have ever seen a Mass of clowns or sugar cookies. If clown Masses were very common, we wouldn’t keep seeing the same outdated pictures pop up to try and make some point or another. The discerning poster can get the point, namely, that these things are abberations.
Personally, I have little toerance for any abuse and would not hesitate to try and remedy it.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
I absolutely, without a doubt do. Anyone who doesn’t isn’t receiving a sacrament at all.
I don’t know anyone who assists at an SSPX Mass or is a priest, brother , Bishop, or nun associated with the Society of St. Pius X who does so because they were attracted by the reverence.
I guess I would ask you to name the specific order of Pope Benedict XVI that an SSPX Bishop or priest or layperson is not obeying. If your only answer is the Pope’s statement that the SSPX does not exercise a ministry in the Church, I won’t deny that this statement of canonical reality has been reiterated. But I am going to ask you where Pope Benedict has requested that priests of the SSPX desist from saying Mass and close their chapels.
This is probably the most common misconception of modern Catholics. All I am doing is assisting at the Mass and following the same religion I leaned and practiced years before the Novus Ordo Missae. If that implies a difference to anyone, then they may need to re-examine what modern Catholicism has become in practice and liturgy.
- Status