I would recommend that if you are just coming back to the Church, you focus on...coming back to the Church, instead of wrestling with NO/TLM drama.
The Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) Thread
- Thread starter redbeard
- Start date
They are correct about confession.
But not about baptism (that's because they are so-called "Feeneyist" heretics who deny the baptism of desire).
There is a nice summary of all the main points about baptism of desire at https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/baptism-of-desire
You are correct, there are not many priests left ... but as you probably guessed already, this is no issue for them because they see themselves as the true Church remnant and want you to join their sect ...
And being ordained in the old rite is not sufficient ; if a priest has been ordained in the old rite but says the Novus Ordo, and declares himself in communion with the Novus Ordo Church, he is no different from a Catholic perspective from an Orthodox priest - his sacrements are valid but illicit, as he is a member of a schismatic body.
Some people are emotional and make a drama of it, unfortunately : but at heart it is something that should be discussed technically and dispassionately.
Definitely, but NOT by someone who hasn't been to confession in 15 years and is still living with a woman. We see too many cases of forum members neglecting their spiritual life and instead draining their time and energy into debating issues that are above their pay grade (myself included!).
So is it ok to have a Novus Ordo preist here my confession? If I understand correctly, is his sacrament still valid but illicit? What does illicit mean in this context?
TXbro : "So is it ok to have a Novus Ordo preist here my confession?"
No, basically there is no licit confession anywhere today to the best of my knowledge. You may find this shocking or unbelievable (and as Redbeard said, it may be a bit early for you to delve into those issues) so don't take my word for it, just keep it in the back of your mind, go out trying things out by yourself ; and if, after a time, you find that all the communities you tried are not really helpful to your spiritual life (as happens to many people today), you might find what I'm saying more plausible and consider looking deeper into it.
TXbro : "If I understand correctly, is his sacrament still valid but illicit? What does illicit mean in this context ?"
If the priest has been ordained in the new, invalid rite (or by a non-bishop ordained according to the new invalid rite for the consecration of bishops), his confessions are invalid, i.e. he is not a priest at all, and whether he knows it or not, he is only mimicking and pretending to give sacrements. It's like what happens during phone sex, the people are only pretending.
If, on the other hand, the priest has been ordained in the old, valid rite, he is really a priest and what he does is valid. But if he supports heretic ideas such as gay marriage, or is a member of a non-Catholic sect (the FSSPX or the Orthodox Church), what he does is also illicit, i.e. against the law of the Church.
This is getting complicated. New question. The Latin Mass I went to about a year ago where the priest wouldn’t hear my confession was an FSSP mass. FSSP isn’t Catholic?
If by FSSP you mean the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, they are in communion with the Novus Ordo Church and its antipope so yes, they're not Catholic either.
Ok. Thanks for the clarification.
I'll have to do more research into all of this. What Orders/Sects are not in communion with Novus Ordo? What I'm getting from all this is that Confession is going to be impossible.
Don't wrestle with the sedevacantist debate right now, find a priest in a confessional and save your soul. I disagree 100% with what some folks are telling you.
100% agree - Novus Ordo priests can hear confessions @TXbro . The modern day Novus Ordo scene has all kinds of problems, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the sacraments. As long as sacraments have proper form and matter, and are given through a priest with Holy Orders and you have the proper dispositions, then it works 100% of the time. The idea that a minister of the Church has to have a certain level of holiness for the sacraments he offers to work is a heresy: it's called Donatism.
Christ Himself guaranteed that the gates of hell would not prevail against the rock of the Church (Peter) - see Matthew 16:18 (Knox or Duay-Rheims translations are best in my opinion).
From the Catechism of Trent, on Article 9 on the Creed:
"It should not be deemed a matter of surprise that the Church, although numbering among her children many sinners, is called holy. For as those who profess any art, even though they depart from its rules, are still called artists, so in like manner the faithful, although offending in many things and violating the engagements to which they had pledged themselves, are still called holy, because they have been made the people of God and have consecrated themselves to Christ by faith and Baptism. Hence, St. Paul calls the Corinthians sanctified and holy, although it is certain that among them there were some whom he severely rebuked as carnal, and also charged with grosser crimes."
I hope you will not to fall for the temptation of being separated from the Church!
There's good NO and bad NO priests, likewise TLM. The argument some sedes make would mean that over a billion faithful Catholics the world over are condemned to hell because their priests aren't real "priests." It's nonsense and heresy. And you don't have to like Francis to be a Catholic, I disagree with him more often than not, but you can respect the office without liking the man.
Find a parish that suits you. If it's FSSP or even diocesan TLM, awesome. If not, that's fine, too. There are highly reverent Novus Ordo priests out there who still celebrate a beautiful and fully valid and licit Mass. It took me over a year to find the parish I'm with now, a diocesan TLM with a rock solid based priest and I wouldn't be surprised if he occasionally lurks the forum considering some of the topics he brings up in private conversation. Before that I was with a highly reverent NO parish, essentially an ad orientem English Mass said in Latin also with a based priest.
The first step is just getting your butt into a confessional, attending Holy Mass, and receiving the Blessed Sacrament. You can worry about all the debating after you're in a state of sanctifying grace.
Find a parish that suits you. If it's FSSP or even diocesan TLM, awesome. If not, that's fine, too. There are highly reverent Novus Ordo priests out there who still celebrate a beautiful and fully valid and licit Mass. It took me over a year to find the parish I'm with now, a diocesan TLM with a rock solid based priest and I wouldn't be surprised if he occasionally lurks the forum considering some of the topics he brings up in private conversation. Before that I was with a highly reverent NO parish, essentially an ad orientem English Mass said in Latin also with a based priest.
The first step is just getting your butt into a confessional, attending Holy Mass, and receiving the Blessed Sacrament. You can worry about all the debating after you're in a state of sanctifying grace.
Amen, and to corroborate the existence of reverent Novus Ordo priests - there are plenty of young men who enter the seminary with a great love for the liturgy and want to celebrate it as it ought to be celebrated, but simply are not afforded the opportunity to so because of the damaged state of so many dioceses and churches. They are the real heroes in my estimation, because they take the suffering due to the liturgical revolutionaries on their own backs, even though they did nothing to cause it. I remember complaining to one such seminarian about the bad aesthetics of the Novus Ordo, and I could tell it hurt him deeply - I really regret it!
In short, many "Novus Ordo" priests are really doing thankless work in bringing the worship of God back where it ought to be - they just aren't bragging or complaining about it.
Indeed, impossible or next to impossible (although of course we can never be 100% sure, as we don't personally know every community on this planet, and we should certainly pray for God to relieve us of this terrible situation).
This is the home-aloner position, which I endorse.
I never used a Donatist argument. On the contrary, I always insisted on the distinction between validity and liceity as TXbro noticed.
Please tell me SilentCal, do you deny that schism and heresy automatically separate a person from the Church (canon 2314 from the 1917 code) ?
I never questioned that or even expressed an opinion about it. All I'm saying is that those folks are powerless, they have their hands tied, they lose every time because the game is rigged against them.. They are left alone as long as they don't make too much noise. But if they would start reaching too much people, or becoming too effective in the fight against current degeneracies, the NO higher hierachy will start persecuting and opposing them in its hypocritical and under-handed way as it always has done.
Of course I would grant that schism and heresy separate someone from the Church. But from your position there is no living authority, no living judge, to refer to when trying to determine what the Church is and is not. This position would not be possible to hold in a court of natural law, much less in Catholic theology.
What we're discussing here is in the Divine Law part of Canon Law, which has no equivalent in secular law, so your analogy breaks down completely.
Indeed, the "automatically" (ipso facto) in the canon I mentioned is somehow contrary to the "innocent until proven otherwise" principle in modern secular law.
I noticed how you dropped the "automatically" from the statement. I'll take that to mean that you do not accept that canon as it is and insist upon distorting it, and that for you (as for most "Catholics" today) "schism" or "heresy" (or even "sin") have no objective existence in themselves, they exist only by "living judges" fiat. In fact, in your view "schism", or "heresy" are merely redundant synonyms for disobedience (to the "living judges").
But what if your "living judges" disagree between themselves ? To quote one example among many others, you have Fr. James Martin saying that anal sex is wonderful and more conservative-minded clergy saying it's a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance ? The (alleged) Living-Judge-in-Chief has not judged between them, he's even publicly uttered statements in his usual ambiguous way about how he's not to judge that.
Last edited:
To your first point, my analogy does not break down, because any law assumes that there is a possible reference to an intelligent and final authority that is able to speak on the matter, and your theological position makes this impossible. It's necessary because often people disagree theologically, and it must be possible in principle to resolve such disputes in order to maintain the unity of the deposit of the faith (if it can not be resolved by ordinary debate).
Secondly, I didn't leave out "automatically" for any reason, and I don't see any problems with that formulation. I'd think you would allow me the opportunity to say so before you accuse me of insisting on distorting this canon.
However, it looks like I'm in the clear either way, because it seems that the word "automatically" doesn't appear in the English translation of canon 2314 of the 1917 code, either. In fact, the very next canon, 2315, it seems to suggests that one is not to be considered a heretic until he has been warned and persists in his error:
"One suspected of heresy who, having been warned, does not remove the cause of suspicion is prohibited from legitimate acts; if he is a cleric, moreover, the warning having been repeated without effect, he is suspended from things divine; but if within six months from contracting the penalty, the one suspected of heresy does not completely amend himself, let him be considered as a heretic and liable to the penalties for heretics."
Third, while the buck ultimately can stop with the pope, it almost never does in practice. Most disputes, like the one you referenced, can be easily resolved by simply looking back at the teachings of the magisterium, and that's what we're normally supposed to do. Nobody thinks that every public statement of the pope is a direct locution from God.
They are wrong, especially on Baptism. It is the traditional teaching of the Church that any Baptism is valid so long as the right words are said. Even a Jew or Muslim can baptise someone, if the right form is used. That is not to say that Baptism by a priest is not preferred, along with Catechism formation for adults. On confession, the real question is whether the priest was validly ordained. If he was not validly ordained, he is not a priest and therefore cannot forgive sins. Although the Novus Ordo rite of Holy Orders may have problems, it is still valid. Many good traditionalists, such as Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson hold this position.