Posted on 01/28/2005 11:07:21 AM PST by ultima ratio
Did you read the quote from Leo XIII, posted by gbcdoj, or are you just ignoring it? It specifically states that heretic priests are presumed to offer valid masses.
It is for exactly this reason that known heretical priests were suspended, forbidden to say public mass, or thrown out all together......as they would be a cause of scandal to the faithful, and would be providing them with the performance of blasphemous and invalid masses.
Completely wrong. The reason heretical priests are removed is because they may teach heresy. Even Hans Kung, who is not permitted to teach theology, is still allowed to celebrate Mass.
It is now imcumbent upon the laity to find out WHAT their priest believes, before attending his masses, and approaching Communion. if they know for a fact that he does not believe in the mass as sacrifice & in transubstantiation - they should stay away.
Contradicted by Thomas Aquinas. See gbcdoj's post above.
The two surest signs that something may well be wrong are a) wearing a stole OVER the chasuable, and b) failure to genuflect after the elevations & at the Agnus Dei (or at all!). These are signs of outward dissent, and one should question the priest as to what he believes.
This is absolutely the silliest thing I've ever read. Violating a rubric indicates a priest doesn't believe in transubstantiation?
I don't think even you believe all this nonsense you broadcast. You are teaching error, casting doubt upon the intention of priests whose arrangement of vestments you disapprove of, or those who might use Karl Rahner as a source.
I don't know how many times we have to go through this on FR: if a priest celebrates Mass, it is presumed that he has the proper intention.
It is the height of arrogance to sow doubt about the validity of Masses because of your arbitrary judgments.
Stop doing it!
How would you know he didn't have a valid intention? If he doesn't change the Mass in a substantial way or declare his intention to the contrary, you MUST presume that he intends to do what the Church does, and the Mass is valid.
Thor is preaching error here, and appealing to the absolute worst instincts in a bunch of gullible people who may not know any better.
He should be ashamed of himself.
Well, you arise an interesting point. "A doubtful sacrament is not a sacrament". Now we should not normally go around second guesing the priest. but these are not normal times in which we live.
My opinion would be that if there is some evidence which make you suspiscious, then I would suggest that is the duty of the Catholic to ask the priest exatly what he believes. If you think he is lying - or will not directly and simply answer your question to relieve your doubts, then I guess you must follow your conscience.
In that case, find another priest......another mass, another parish. So I would agree with you.
You mean like Mahony celebrates Mass? I presume something all right but it's not Catholic.
The very structure of the Novus Ordo relies more on the priest's intention than the Tridentine. In the latter it is virtually impossible for a priest to deny intent. In the former it is easy, especially when you consider most Masses resemble nothing of the official Novus Ordo in Latin.
Ven. Anna-Kartarina Emmerick (19th Century): "I saw again the new and odd-looking church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it... People were kneading bread in the crypt below... but it would not rise, nor did they receive the body of Our Lord, but only bread. Those who were in error, through no fault of their own, and who piously and ardently longed for the Body of Jesus were spiritually consoled, but not by their communion. Then, my Guide [Jesus] said: 'THIS IS BABEL.' [The Mass in many languages]."
Simply not true.
And, Katerina Emmerick's "visions" were specifically NOT considered in her cause for canonization.
NO - I am quite correct that the reason that heretical priests are/were removed is that they will sow dissent, teach error AND may not administrate the sacraments validly. This is obvious if one uses right reason.
As to vestments and mass rubrics - there violation of rules governing these things clearly indicates dissent. Further, in reagard to the mass, it indicates a lack of respect for and/or faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. So when one see these things manifested, one should question the soundness of the priest.
"casting doubt upon the intention of priests whose arrangement of vestments you disapprove of, or those who might use Karl Rahner as a source."
Mass vestments, their use, and related rubrics are not my opinion, but are church law/discipline. Any priest who uses the likes of Karl Rahner - a formally denounced heretic - as a source, is subject to be considered a heretic himself.
An invalid mass consists of the material idolatry of bread & wine. There is no transubstantiation at an invalid mass. To have a valid mass the must be proper form (the rite used), matter (bread & wine, as prescribed by the Church), and proper sacramental intention. The lack of anyone of these three results in the perfomance of an invalid and blasphemous mass.
There have been invalid masses in the past, and there are invalid masses being said today. You are stuck on the concept of "presumption", as if this conception protected people from invalid sacraments like some manner of security blanket. It does not. We "presume", when we have no solid evidence to the contrary.
But there is a very thin line between the illicit mass - which is made blasphemous by random liturgical abuses, and a mass which is invalid altogether. A line which is crossed fairly frequently.
To end on this note - why should - or would - any intelligent Catholic, with a strong foundational training in their faith wish to assist in a blasphemous mass? Because, after all, both the illicit and invalid masses are a grave sin in their performance itself. And the name of that sin is blasphemy.
No Catholic should knowingly participate in a mass which is blasphemous, lest they be guilty themselves of this sin.
"The very structure of the Novus Ordo relies more on the priest's intention than the Tridentine."
True! Veritas! Verdad!
"And, Katerina Emmerick's "visions" were specifically NOT considered in her cause for canonization."
Of course they were. They had to be. All of a persons writing, speeches, and details of the person's life are considered in the canonization process. They have to be - to determine the degreee and extent of the person's sactity & herioc virtue. And to determine if the person was free from error/heresy.
But of course you cannot admit this in the case of Emmerich is it would just blow your whole world apart.
No. In Emmerich's case, the truth or falsity of her visions were not a consideration of in her cause for sainthood.
Vade retro, Draco! Ipse venena bibas!
You are playing at words here. In the case of any sainthood cause, where the person is alleged to have locutions, visions, etc. the content of them is examined - and the messages themselves are carefully considered. Truth an falsity are very much at stake.
John Allen, Word From Rome, Oct. 1, 2004Vatican officials, however, say that the visions associated with Emmerich cannot be considered her own work, because the writing was done by a German poet named Clemens Bretano, who functioned as a sort of secretary/interpreter. Officially speaking the literature that goes under her name cannot be addebitato, meaning "attributed," to Emmerich, and thus it was not part of the basis for her beatification.
You are quoting to me from the words of the likes of John Allen.........from the National "Catholic" Reporter?
Yes, indeed.......a source brimming over with sound Catholic teaching, steeped in orthodoxy.
Please pardon me as I puke.......
So you have no proof to the contrary besides your unsupported allegations, then?
When was Karl Rahner formally declared a heretic?
My so-called "allegation" is the product of the combination of right reason, basic Catholic teachings, and the writings of the saints and Doctors of the church.
Since I lead a real life, I have neither the time nor the patience to post endless links and quotes. Even if I did so, you and your cohorts would still not accept them, and would swoop down, en masse, upon myself and any other Catholic poster on here who would dare to defend Catholic tradition.
So it does not matter.
Since you won't answer this, it is safe to assume that you simply made up your charge that Rahner was formally declared a heretic.
Exactly WHO would officially declare Rahner a heretic?? The same people who promote Kasper's agenda????
Nobody declared Rahner a heretic, since he never wrote anything heretical.
That's like getting exercised about the stole over the chasuble. Strain a gnat, swallow a camel.
That may be, but they sure are interesting aren't they.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.