Not A Real Name Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 He's in every cup of Starbucks coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) On 12/24/2015, 9:25:28, MarysLittleFlower said: I disagree about staying home. The Sunday obligation is dispensed if there's no Mass. If there is a Catholic Mass that is valid we are obliged to go there. The Novus Ordo is Sacramentally valid. I'd always choose the TLM if I have a choice. But since the NO is valid, I don't think that gives me an option to stay home. I agree with the rest Edited December 26, 2015 by Ash Wednesday Criticism of the Novus Ordo is not allowed on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seven77 Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 @Josh: Bro. We're all a mess, a bunch of miserable sinners in need of God's mercy. That's why he came down to earth and became one of us--to lift us up out of our misery. He came that we might become like him, and for that reason he gave us the Catholic Church--to share in his life. He has a heart full of pity for us. Confusion is the last thing he wants for us--its logical to believe that Christ founded a Church. The Church is human--us--and divine--the teachings handed down to us from the Apostles, and the Sacraments. Its all about living Christ, living love, when it comes down to it. Listen to his voice cause he still speaks. Merry Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 The Sacraments are not doubtful if the priest is not known to disagree with the Church. The priests I know seem obedient and not dissenting especially on such major topics. So I don't see how it would be doubtful. I still prefer the TLM and go there when I can. I mean the times I can't - its far more risky to miss my obligation especially considering the priests reputation as normal Catholic priests. Again I don't know if a few decades ago there was more dissent. Today I'd say most priests intend to follow the Church. On 12/25/2015, 2:17:29, Gladius said: Moderator note: Criticism of Novus Ordo not allowed on this phorum. The TLM is more clear about the Mass being a Sacrifice. But priests today still believe its a Sacrifice and learn that. So they still intend to do that when they say Mass. If they intend to do what the Church does, the Mass is valid. Even if in the form is less clear, if the priest intends it, it still happens. The lessened clarity can affect doubting priests or uncatechized lay people. But an orthodox priest would still have the right intent. Maybe some don't but I just don't have a reason to suppose that the priests I know don't believe the Mass is a Sacrifice. People wearing shorts to Mass is bad but it doesn't invalidate it. There is literally just a few things you need - a real priest who intends to do what the Church does. That's what the Anglicans lost. I disagree that I'm taking chances when there's no reason to doubt the priest saying Mass. Not all parishes have the Tabernacle to the side and all the rest. The local Basilica where I live has people receiving at the altar rail. But while these things are important they don't change validity. If I'm wrong in anything I hope God shows me, but I don't think its wrong to trust and obey my priest. The FSSP don't "endorse" the NO, they just see it as valid, which it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 9 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said: The Sacraments are not doubtful if the priest is not known to disagree with the Church. The priests I know seem obedient and not dissenting especially on such major topics. So I don't see how it would be doubtful. I still prefer the TLM and go there when I can. I mean the times I can't - its far more risky to miss my obligation especially considering the priests reputation as normal Catholic priests. Again I don't know if a few decades ago there was more dissent. Today I'd say most priests intend to follow the Church. The TLM is more clear about the Mass being a Sacrifice. But priests today still believe its a Sacrifice and learn that. So they still intend to do that when they say Mass. If they intend to do what the Church does, the Mass is valid. Even if in the form is less clear, if the priest intends it, it still happens. The lessened clarity can affect doubting priests or uncatechized lay people. But an orthodox priest would still have the right intent. Maybe some don't but I just don't have a reason to suppose that the priests I know don't believe the Mass is a Sacrifice. People wearing shorts to Mass is bad but it doesn't invalidate it. There is literally just a few things you need - a real priest who intends to do what the Church does. That's what the Anglicans lost. I disagree that I'm taking chances when there's no reason to doubt the priest saying Mass. Not all parishes have the Tabernacle to the side and all the rest. The local Basilica where I live has people receiving at the altar rail. But while these things are important they don't change validity. If I'm wrong in anything I hope God shows me, but I don't think its wrong to trust and obey my priest. The FSSP don't "endorse" the NO, they just see it as valid, which it is. You really don't want to know what is going on in diocesan seminaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 There's far more danger in missing my Sunday obligation than going to a Mass that I have no reason to suppose as invalid. I'm not going to risk my soul like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 48 minutes ago, Gladius said: You really don't want to know what is going on in diocesan seminaries. Maybe they're not perfect but I don't think most priests are ordained rejecting such a basic idea, because the things new priests say are pretty conservative / orthodox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 55 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said: There's far more danger in missing my Sunday obligation than going to a Mass that I have no reason to suppose as invalid. I'm not going to risk my soul like that. I tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Gladius, I have a confessor and a spiritual director who I trust with questions like this. I don't trust myself because I have scruples. I can't just miss Mass when everything - reason and observation - suggests to me that the priest intends the right thing. Its not "doubtful" in the parish I go. I can't just stop going to Mass because people on the internet believe that the Mass I go to when I can't get a TLM, is doubtful, especially as I don't think it is. If I did that I'm pretty sure I'd be in Confession the next day and I don't want to presume. With all due respect, there are many views here and I learned over time that if I change my mind because of forums, I'd just be confused. When I have a doctrinal or moral question I try to ask my confessor and since he has many years of excellent training and experience as a priest, I hope it makes sense why I would trust his judgement over phatmass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 8 hours ago, Gladius said: you might consider staying at home Get thee behind me, Satan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Ex opere operato.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) Keep in mind the idea that a priest's state of soul affects the Sacraments is a defined heresy. It doesn't matter what a priest believes or intends whenever he performs a sacrament. So long as he uses the proper formula, a priest can intend to turn bread into a chicken sandwich and it would still be a validly consecrated Host. A priest can believe defined mortal sins are not mortal sins, but his absolution still absolves penitents of those very mortal sins when they confess them, even if in the priest's mind he doesn't intend to absolve them. You don't need to be a post Vatican II priest celebrating the Novus Ordo to be a heretic and believe crazy things. I'd think that's pretty easy to understand when looking through the history of the Church. God would never allow the validity of his sacraments to be determined by the moral state or belief of the priest. He knows human nature far too well to not have made a fail safe as protection for the flock. 5 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said: The Sacraments are not doubtful if the priest is not known to disagree with the Church. The priests I know seem obedient and not dissenting especially on such major topics. So I don't see how it would be doubtful. I still prefer the TLM and go there when I can. I mean the times I can't - its far more risky to miss my obligation especially considering the priests reputation as normal Catholic priests. Again I don't know if a few decades ago there was more dissent. Today I'd say most priests intend to follow the Church. The TLM is more clear about the Mass being a Sacrifice. But priests today still believe its a Sacrifice and learn that. So they still intend to do that when they say Mass. If they intend to do what the Church does, the Mass is valid. Even if in the form is less clear, if the priest intends it, it still happens. The lessened clarity can affect doubting priests or uncatechized lay people. But an orthodox priest would still have the right intent. Maybe some don't but I just don't have a reason to suppose that the priests I know don't believe the Mass is a Sacrifice. People wearing shorts to Mass is bad but it doesn't invalidate it. There is literally just a few things you need - a real priest who intends to do what the Church does. That's what the Anglicans lost. I disagree that I'm taking chances when there's no reason to doubt the priest saying Mass. Not all parishes have the Tabernacle to the side and all the rest. The local Basilica where I live has people receiving at the altar rail. But while these things are important they don't change validity. If I'm wrong in anything I hope God shows me, but I don't think its wrong to trust and obey my priest. The FSSP don't "endorse" the NO, they just see it as valid, which it is. None of the Novus Ordo Masses I have ever attended were like that. You're making blanket statements and making them universally true and absolutely damning. I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallacy. Edit: Whoops, I quoted the wrong person. I meant to quote Gladius. Edited December 25, 2015 by PhuturePriest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Logic is not one of my strong traits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 6 hours ago, PhuturePriest said: Keep in mind the idea that a priest's state of soul affects the Sacraments is a defined heresy. It doesn't matter what a priest believes or intends whenever he performs a sacrament. So long as he uses the proper formula, a priest can intend to turn bread into a chicken sandwich and it would still be a validly consecrated Host. A priest can believe defined mortal sins are not mortal sins, but his absolution still absolves penitents of those very mortal sins when they confess them, even if in the priest's mind he doesn't intend to absolve them. You don't need to be a post Vatican II priest celebrating the Novus Ordo to be a heretic and believe crazy things. I'd think that's pretty easy to understand when looking through the history of the Church. God would never allow the validity of his sacraments to be determined by the moral state or belief of the priest. He knows human nature far too well to not have made a fail safe as protection for the flock. None of the Novus Ordo Masses I have ever attended were like that. You're making blanket statements and making them universally true and absolutely damning. I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallacy. Edit: Whoops, I quoted the wrong person. I meant to quote Gladius. Wait I'm a bit confused. The priests state of soul doesn't affect the Sacraments true. That is condemned. But the reason the Anglicans lost their Sacraments according to the Pope of the time is that they no longer intended to do what the Church intends. So is that one intent necessary? I agree that nothing else would invalidate even mortal sin. But I thought the priest should intend to do what the Church does for the Mass to be offered? I do think most priests intend this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, MarysLittleFlower said: Wait I'm a bit confused. The priests state of soul doesn't affect the Sacraments true. That is condemned. But the reason the Anglicans lost their Sacraments according to the Pope of the time is that they no longer intended to do what the Church intends. So is that one intent necessary? I agree that nothing else would invalidate even mortal sin. But I thought the priest should intend to do what the Church does for the Mass to be offered? I do think most priests intend this. Most priests certainly intend this. But if a priest decides the Sacraments are not real, so long as he uses the correct formula, they are still valid. The Anglicans lost their sacraments when the last of their validly ordained bishops died and they as a whole rebelled against the Church and set up a counter magisterium which rejected the Eucharist and likely changed the formula for the consecration. There are certainly others here more qualified to answer the nuances of this. I just know the personal beliefs or intent of a priest do not invalidate a sacrament. As Norseman said earlier, "ex opere operato," meaning the power of the Sacraments comes through Jesus, not the priest himself. Edited December 25, 2015 by PhuturePriest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now