popestpiusx Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 I suppose my question should not have been so accusatory. I do apologize. I should have merely asked what relevance your statement about trads had to the discussion and why you would think that I would support the rent-a-priests (especially considering that I am a traditionalist, though not an intentionaly disobedient one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThyWillBeDone Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Urg, This kind of thing makes me so mad. I have heard about Rent-a-Priest before I wish we could something to get the cruise lines to stop using them. Unfortunatly, popestpiusx is correct, if the priest was validly ordained the mass is still valid, it is just not licit. Urg, makes me feel bad for the poor people who go on these cruises and have no clue that the mass they are at is being celebrated illicitly. God Bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jan 17 2005, 02:29 PM'] You're "why in the hell" [/quote] So I asked "Why in the hell would I condone rent-a priest Masses" and you replied, "Yes, What the friggin hell." Forgive me for my ignorance, but that does not seem to make any sense whatsoever. A questioning beginning with the term "Why" is not typically a yes or no question. Edited January 17, 2005 by popestpiusx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 As I know you are a Traditionalist I was under the impression you were trying to condone the rent a priest company by explaining why the masses are valid and "a-okay" to go to. Though you didn't say "a-okay" the general tone seemed to indicate it. As most Traditionalists defend not only the validity of the SSPX masses and use the explaination you gave, but encourage it, I figured this is what you were doing for the "Rent a Priest". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 (edited) [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jan 17 2005, 02:35 PM'] So I asked "Why in the hell would I condone rent-a priest Masses" and you replied, "Yes, What the friggin hell." Forgive me for my ignorance, but that does not seem to make any sense whatsoever. A questioning beginning with the term "Why" is not typically a yes or no question. [/quote] Do you really want to persue this? I don't want to. No reason to persue it. You said "hell" in anger then that got me angry and I said "friggin hell" in anger. It wasn't really suppose to make sense I don't think. It was anger. Edited January 17, 2005 by Brother Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 (edited) Back to the married I left the Catholic Church priests. While the seal of ordination can never be taken away, I know there is a matter of discipline that is followed. It would seem they have excommunicated themselves through their sin, and thus should not be saying mass. And if they are going to be a complete idiot and say it anyway should warn those who are attending. Edited January 17, 2005 by Brother Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 I was defending the validity of the rent a priest Masses based on baisc sacramental theology. Nothing I said indicated that I support them in any way. If I don't attend the Novus Ordo in union with Rome (on a regular basis) do you think I would attend one not in union with Rome?I would never reccomend going to a rent-a-priest Mass, valid or no, for any reason at all. If it was the only Mass in the country I would still not go. Secondly, anyone who knows anything at all about sacramental theology will defend the validity of the SSPX Masses because that validity is unquestionable. The reason they use the same explanation I gave is because that is what the Church teaches. Just because it's valid, however, does not mean that one may attend it. Validity is not the only issue. Liceity is also at play, and this I was very clear about in my earlier posts with regard to both groups of priests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jan 17 2005, 02:38 PM'] Do you really want to persue this? I don't want to. No reason to persue it. You said "hell" in anger then that got me angry and I said "friggin hell" in anger. It wasn't really suppose to make sense I don't think. It was anger. [/quote] I was simply asking a question. I was wanting to know how you would have gotten the impression that I somehow condone R.A.P. (which we have now settled). I was not angry in the slightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jan 17 2005, 02:42 PM'] Back to the married I left the Catholic Church priests. While the seal of ordination can never be taken away, I know there is a matter of discipline that is followed. It would seem they have excommunicated themselves through their sin, and thus should not be saying mass. And if they are going to be a complete idiot and say it anyway should warn those who are attending. [/quote] Right. They should not be saying Mass. But that is something entirely different from saying that they "cannot" or are unable to do so validly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jan 17 2005, 02:42 PM'] And if they are going to be a complete idiot and say it anyway should warn those who are attending. [/quote] I think all the Raps are idiots (though that may be an unfair generalization). If they warn people, some people would not attend and that is the last thing they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jan 17 2005, 01:04 PM'] Edited to add: You seem to condone rent-a-priest massses [/quote] Hmmm... I never got that feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XIX Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jan 17 2005, 12:44 PM'] With the SSPX, their orders are unquestionable, as is the validity of their Masses. It is the liceity of their Masses that is, at the very least, questionable. [/quote] He also said that the R-A-P is "illicit, very illicit." It seems like he isn't anti-Catholic in any of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birgitta Noel Posted January 17, 2005 Author Share Posted January 17, 2005 On the subject of warning. I can imagine the "warning" going something like this, "You may know that I am a married priest, but my Mass is still valid according to blah blah blah." Sort of a misleading full disclosure sort of thing that they would likely get away with 9.8 times out of 10! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 I think that even if they did give a warning the vast majority of Catholics today would not care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birgitta Noel Posted January 19, 2005 Author Share Posted January 19, 2005 I think they would care if they understood the implications, but most wouldn't "get it". 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