In 'Good Standing' with the Church?

simple Faith Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:41 pm

If someone does not accept the Novus Ordo Mass as valid and refuses to attend such a Mass on Sundays, even when a Latin Mass is not available, (and thus not fulfilling his Sunday obligation) can he be considered as in 'good standing' with the Church?
I think not, but I would be very interested to hear the views of others on this matter.
BTW is there actually an offical interpretation of 'in good standing' or is it even an offical Church term?

George Brenner Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:38 pm

Simple Faith said:

If someone does not accept the Novus Ordo Mass as valid and refuses to attend such a Mass on Sundays, even when a Latin Mass is not available, (and thus not fulfilling his Sunday obligation) can he be considered as in 'good standing' with the Church?
I think not, but I would be very interested to hear the views of others on this matter.
BTW is there actually an offical interpretation of 'in good standing' or is it even an offical Church term?

Simple Faith, I would encourage you to go to You Tube and search Cardinal Arinze and listen carefully to everything he discusses that you can get your hands on. I believe that many of your questions will be answered. He is very strong in the faith. He has a fourteen minute speech on the Novus Order and recently restored more accurate and reverent language in the Novus Order.

With my lowly station in life it is not for me to pass judgement on your status or others in regards to their sinfulness. I am but a sinner before God. I would say to you on whose authority did you decide that the Novus Order is not valid. Missing Mass on Sunday or Holy days without valid reason is a Mortal sin which needs to be confessed.
I believe in good standing might be defined as a practicing Catholic, free from mortal sin.
We all seem to quote Pope Eugene IV over and over concerning No salvation Outside the Catholic Church. I believe that the last few words of The Popes pronouncement detail tragic eternal punishment for those who were Catholic and then left and thus did not "REMAIN" or return to the One True Faith. Be careful.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1441: “The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

God Bless you,

JMJ,

George

columba Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:20 pm

simple Faith wrote:If someone does not accept the Novus Ordo Mass as valid and refuses to attend such a Mass on Sundays, even when a Latin Mass is not available, (and thus not fulfilling his Sunday obligation) can he be considered as in 'good standing' with the Church?
I think not, but I would be very interested to hear the views of others on this matter.
BTW is there actually an offical interpretation of 'in good standing' or is it even an offical Church term?

If someone had good cause to believe that a Mass was invalid and yet still attended that Mass; not only would that person be committing a grave sin, they would also be putting themselves in danger of losing the faith.
If someone believed that a Mass was indeed valid but that it was nonetheless gravely offensive to God, it would be no sin to stay away from such an irreverance.

I take it what your really getting at here SF is whether an individual has the right to determine on his own bat whether or not a Mass be valid, liicit or pleasing to God.
I would say No. Even though it be the case that many do make this decision (in fact the majority do) and come to their own conclussion that, Yes, this Mass in it's structure and expression is in accord with the dignity, respect and reverence due to the Creator of the World.

I would say that before one makes any private determination on the matter, one should familiarize himself with what the Mass in fact is. One should (given the present circumstances) familiarize himself with what popes, saints and Doctors have written concerning the Mass; what constitutes a valid Mass in form and matter; what is the primary and then secondary objects of the Mass; what the significance of the priesthood is; what differentiates the ordained priest from the un-ordained laity; what dispositions should be present both external and internal when receiving the Holy Eucharist. All these aspects combined, go to make up a worthy offering to God. Some of them being essential for validity, some essential for licitness while all being essential for worthy praise of God
As Mike has recently pointed out, some of these essentials can be absent even from the TLM; however, when these are absent and not included as essentials in the very structure of a form, then the form itself is deficient regardless of the individual priest or laities own contribution, and so, the informed determination that I personally have come to concerning the Novus Ordo Missae, is that it's not pleasing to God.
Do the FSSP think that it's a form that's pleasing to God? No.
Does Fr. Rodriguez think so? No.
Do all the heretical priests I know think so? Yes.
Do all the liberal catholics I know think so. Yes.
Do all those I know who who took to praying the daily rosary have serious reservations about the Novus Ordo Mass? Yes.

On such as these do I base my own opinion.

I read a few years ago (I think it was in South America) that a Catholic priest who had abandoned the faith and had got involved in satanic worship, used his priestly anointing to bring about transubstantiation for purposes that I can't bring myself to mention. All that's worth saying here is that it would not have been a Mass that any Catholic who loved Christ would be in attendance at.

Re, The term, "In Good Standing." It has been used by the CDF on several ocassions. I don't have references at hand but the term has been used in relation to those performing lay ministry roles within the Church, i.e. readers, EM's, music, etc, that they be in "good standing" and be not a source of scandal to others, especially in the area of relationships.

George Brenner Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:18 am

Columba,

In your own words you do base your own opinion on this subject and far too many, when you need to listen more. What you have posted about Father Michael is wrong and your judgement and advise on attendance at the Novus Ordo, ( which I am on record as saying repeatedly must be remedied and restored to reverence ) is terribly wrong. You can be a great asset in the Church Militants fight to help restore the Church, but you better get your head screwed on straight first. The Devil must want your soul awfully bad.

Please read the following and do not be ashamed or to proud to weep:

Priestly worthiness:

In 313, a special synod was held at the Lateran Palace in Rome to deal with this issue. Donatus was condemned and excommunicated, not only for his heretical teaching but also for rebaptizing and ordaining apostates. However, the heresy continued to plague the Church until Emperor Honorius renewed the condemnation of the Donatists and imposed severe civil sanctions against them in 411.
During this time, St. Augustine (354-430) was the great champion of true Catholic teaching. In his In Ioannis evangelium tractatus, he forcefully distinguished the action of Christ versus the action of the minister when performing a sacrament: Christ acts by His power, while the minister acts by his ministry entrusted to him by Christ. Therefore, “those whom Judas baptized, Christ baptized. So too, then, those whom a drunkard baptized, those whom a murderer baptized, those whom an adulterer baptized, if the Baptism was of Christ, Christ baptized” (5,18).
Nevertheless, St. Augustine also sharply chastised the minister not properly disposed to perform the sacrament: “As for the proud minister, he is to be ranked with the devil. Christ’s gift is not thereby profaned: what flows through him keeps its purity, and what passes through him remains clear and reaches the fertile earth. … The spiritual power of the sacrament is indeed comparable to light: those to be enlightened receive it in its purity, and if it should pass through defiled beings, it is not itself defiled.” (In Ioannis evangelium tractatus, 5, 15).
The Church has continued to reassert this teaching, especially in those times of crisis. In the Middle Ages, when clerical laxity was a problem in some areas, St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1224) taught, “The sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God” (Summa Theologiae, III, 68, . In response to the objections of certain Protestant reformers, the Council of Trent in itsDecree on the Sacraments (1547) declared, “If anyone says that a minister in the state of mortal sin, though he observes all the essentials that belong to the performing and conferring of the sacrament, does not perform or confer the sacrament, anathema sit ["let him be condemned"]. Finally, the Catechism asserts, “From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and His Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister” (no.1128).

In all, the Church’s teaching is really spiritual common sense. Christ who instituted the sacraments must be the one who actually works the sacrament, thereby giving us the assurance that the sacrament has indeed worked and conveyed the grace it signifies. If the efficacy depended upon the human minister, how could anyone of us be assured that the sacrament worked and that we received the promised grace? Such assurance is not humanly obtainable. Nevertheless, priests must strive always to be worthy ministers of the sacraments they celebrate, acting in a state of grace and reflecting the Christ in whose person they act.
In these troubled times, the faithful need to pray for their priests that they will have the grace to lead holy lives and persevere in their sacred vocation. We must not forget that the Church is a divine institution founded by our Savior, but an institution made up of frail human beings who sin. If the Church were not continuing the mission of Christ, He would not have allowed her to survive for almost 2,000 years. Moreover, we must not forget the nearly 40,000 priests and almost 20,000 religious brothers and sisters in our country who have devoted their lives to the Lord and the Church, but never have received mention in the media for their good work. Keep in mind too that Satan knows he cannot defeat the Church from the outside, for the Church survived the awful persecutions of the Roman Empire and Communism; rather, Satan will try to defeat the Church from the inside, preying on the frailty of her members.
Yes, these are hurtful and troubled times, and persecution is here; however, the Church will be purged and purified, from the top down and across the board, and in the end a stronger, holier Church will emerge.

simple Faith Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:09 am

George,
Thanks for you thoughtful response (as always) and your Youtube link to Cardinal Arinze which I am now just about to view.
BTW George, when posing the original question, I should have made it clear that I totally accept the Novus Ordo Mass as valid and attend it most days (although I am totally opposed to any abuses inserted by individual priests) but thank you anyway for the concern for my soul expressed in your reply. My intention in asking the question was to have proper and concise Catholic teaching to refute those, who I believe, have lost the essence of their Catholic faith in their 'blind' adherence to their interpretation of tradition.
I totally agree with you George that the devil must really want the souls of those (especially of some on this forum) who could be a great asset in the Church Militants fight to help restore the Church. Fortunately, when these rad-trads and sedes attack the Church, under the leadership of the Pope, they inevitably form a circular firing squad.

Columba,
Are you saying that, 'good cause' = 'good standing'?
Surely any individual can make a case that their action and behaviour is for a 'good cause', but how can he be in 'good standing' with the higher authority to which he refuses to give allegiance to?
Should it not be the 'higher authority' that judges the 'good standing' of the individual subject and not the individual who judges the 'good standing' of the higher authority?

I was told by a priest, many years ago, that if you wake up some morning and find that you are further away from God, it is not God who has moved.
Similarly if you find yourself further away from the Church (Pope) it is not the Church or the Pope who has moved.

columba Sun Mar 11, 2012 3:11 pm

George wrote:

Columba,

In your own words you do base your own opinion on this subject and far too many, when you need to listen more. What you have posted about Father Michael is wrong and your judgement and advise on attendance at the Novus Ordo, ( which I am on record as saying repeatedly must be remedied and restored to reverence ) is terribly wrong. You can be a great asset in the Church Militants fight to help restore the Church, but you better get your head screwed on straight first. The Devil must want your soul awfully bad.

Please read the following and do not be ashamed or to proud to weep:

Priestly worthiness:

George, I am aware (and have been so from at least the time of my first Holy Communion) that the sacraments are validated ex opere operato ( by the action of the priest alone, independent of the priests own worthiness or inner disposition) and I have never doubted this. The graces the individual obtains from the sacraments however, are received ex opera operantis (according to his good disposition or lack thereof) and this I have never doubted either.

George I weep for my sins without shame, and I am ashamed to admit that I don't weep enough.
I don't however weep for making a stand for the truths of the faith. I weep when I don't.

columba Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:52 pm

Simple Faith wrote:

Columba,
Are you saying that, 'good cause' = 'good standing'?
Surely any individual can make a case that their action and behaviour is for a 'good cause', but how can he be in 'good standing' with the higher authority to which he refuses to give allegiance to?

Being seen to be in good standing is irrelevant to me.
Good standing can only be judged in the external forum. I did perform lay duties within the NO construct and devoted a great portion of my time to such duties. I was considered as being in good standing at that time. I could not now be considered in good standing within the NO structure because I won't attend the NO Mass. However I'm at peace with this and don't worry at all about human respect.
My allegiance now is to the truths of the faith and not to mans inovations. If remaining in league with the higher authorities of today means abandoning my allegiance to the traditions and teachings of Christ and His Holy Church throughout time, I have no qualms in choosing the latter.

A practical example: A close friend or relative who happens to be a baptized Catholic, decides to get married outside the Church; I am invited to attend the sacramentally invalid marriage; I am now faced with a conflict of allegiance. Do I give my allegiance to the close family member or friend, allowing human respect to win the day, or, do I give my allegiance to Christ and the teachings of His Church and risk the friendship?
Some reckon we have a choice; I reckon we don't.

If we be consistant in the small day-to-day issues, the bigger ones will take care of themselves. Thus far, the bigger issues on which I am not competent to judge (i.e, whether or not the post concilliar Church and its leaders are in a state of apostasy) hasn't impinged on my ability to make moral judgements that are consistant with Church teaching. In that respect my normal life as a Catholic remains unchanged. I consider my non attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass to be a decission pertaining to morals rather than faith. It's never morally permissible to condone, cooperate with, or consent to anothers sin. If I attend the NO mass I consider myself as being guilty of all three.

I really don't have any obligation to make answer to anyone for the way I chose to protect and guard my faith in a time when all around me seem to be loosing theirs. I merely do so in the hope that others may see that there are legitimate roads of resistance open to all during this diabolical crisis.

BTW SF, I don't think George was dirrecting his advice and comments at you. Smile

Guest Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:05 am

Simple Faith wrote:

If someone does not accept the Novus Ordo Mass as valid and refuses to attend such a Mass on Sundays, even when a Latin Mass is not available, (and thus not fulfilling his Sunday obligation) can he be considered as in 'good standing' with the Church?
I think not, but I would be very interested to hear the views of others on this matter.
BTW is there actually an offical interpretation of 'in good standing' or is it even an offical Church term

Simple Faith, the answer to your question is utterly simple. A person does not need to be an expert in scholastic theology to understand right from wrong. Yes and no are opposed to one another. We could go into one again, but, what good will it do? You have already made up your mind on what position you take in this Great Apostasy. The truth is, the “New Order” mass (an abomination) was created with the help of six Protestant “ministers” “by a man who thought “Buddhism is one of the riches of Asia” and whose intention was to "get the mass closer to the Calvinist mass”.

“Every heresy is to be anathematized and in particular that of the Eunomians or Anomoeans, that of the Arians or Eudoxians, that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, that of the Sabellians that of the Marcellians, that of the Photinians and that of the Apollinarians.” (Council of Constantinople, 381, Can. 1)

John 8:32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

simple Faith Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:16 am

So Fatima in which Church are YOU in 'good standing' with (assuming that there is no visible Catholic Church) and who are your present day role models? Who now should we aim to be in 'good standing' with?

columba Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:33 pm

simple Faith wrote:So Fatima in which Church are YOU in 'good standing' with (assuming that there is no visible Catholic Church) and who are your present day role models? Who now should we aim to be in 'good standing' with?

In which Church were Frs. x, y, and z in good standing before being whisked away in a police wagon .
The point is. "good standing" is all in the external forum and is useful in helping prevent ocassions of scandal arising, but as you can see, "good standing" within any church can't change the reality of whether a person be in "good standing" with God or not. That's what really counts.

George Brenner Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:20 pm

Columba said: "good standing" within any church can't change the reality of whether a person be in "good standing" with God or not. That's what really counts.

This reminds me of the countless conversations with people I have had through the years, who say they do not belong to any religion but that they pray straight to God and are right with God. Sorry, there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church.

I believe that the pain that many suffer including the Pope during this crisis of faith has left you with no alternative but to prove to yourself that the recent popes are either heretics, anti popes or we are Apostasy of the faith. If we do not restore the abuses and the TLM to its rightful place as previous Popes have warned future generations not to tamper with and weed out the infiltration and sacrilege that has occurred in the last several decades then and only then will we be given are marching orders. This crisis will end. I have prayed that our True faith had not unraveled to such complexity and confusion for most of my life. Now there is a TV ad promoting Catholics come Home, with a young child kneeling for Communion. If only..................

Columba, you should pray that Mike is right and by the grace of God, I know that he is right in defending the Faith. For if you were correct then the Catholic Faith has failed in its promise to remain pure in Doctrine. You are a man of good will but you have misplaced your sadness. You have simply started your own religion out of pain, anger and despair. By you denouncing the Novus Ordo in its entirety, whether you know it or not you have passed jugdement on millions of souls. There is your proof. Stay on the Ark. Jesus and The Holy Spirit will help us. We need your help to restore the Church.

Guest Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:54 pm

Simple Faith wrote:

So Fatima in which Church are YOU in 'good standing' with (assuming that there is no visible Catholic Church) and who are your present day role models? Who now should we aim to be in 'good standing' with?

There is a visible Church SF; it is visible in all true Catholics who hold the faith which was handed down to us. There always will be a visible Church on earth to the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I would say I would be in good standing in the Catholic Church since I believe in the doctrines in which She teaches. I also believe in the teaching of Pope Paul IV, Pope Eugene IV, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, the saints and doctors of the Church including St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis De Sales, St. Antoninus, and St. Cyprian, who all teach that heretics are not members of the Church, and if a pope were to become a heretic he would fall ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church. The post conciliar usurpers contradict the teachings of the above popes and doctors of the Church, they basically teach the opposite, and that is precisely why I take the correct position that the seat is empty. It’s not that hard to figure it out, a person just needs to be honest and brave enough to admit it. Every true Catholic who adheres to the Papacy is required to reject Vatican II and the non-Catholics who imposed it.

SF you should watch the following videos and find out who is in good standing in the Vatican II church:

Here's a video of the recent "tribute" to the new so-called Cardinal Timothy Dolan of NYC:

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/cardinal-dolan-pays-tribute-to-ny-at-st-patricks-prayer-service-20120225-ncx

A video's worth a million words. In (front row) attendance were:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo - Divorced "Catholic" Democrat, living with his girlfriend in sin, openly and notoriously in front of his children and the world. Rabidly pro-abortion, pro-"gay rights", pro-"gay marriage". Apparently still receiving "communion" despite his notorious personal sins, let alone his political ones.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg - Rabidly pro-abortion, pro-"gay rights", pro-"gay marriage" billionaire. A few days before this event, he gave a $250,000 contribution to Planned Parenthood.

Senator Chuck Schumer - Rabidly pro-abortion, pro-"gay rights", pro-"gay marriage"

Former Mayor Ed Koch - Rabidly pro-abortion, pro-"gay rights", pro-"gay marriage" and an overt "homosexual"

Former Mayor David Dinkins - Rabidly pro-abortion, pro-"gay rights", pro-"gay marriage"

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn - Rabidly pro-abortion, pro-"gay rights", pro-"gay marriage" and an overt "lesbian". Claims to be Catholic.

All of them posing and smiling, making a good show for the cameras knowing that their appearance at such a high-profile event, will surely translate into votes with "Catholic" voters come the next election. Keep in mind that all of these politicians are steadfastly for forcing religiously-affiliated institutions to provide free insurance coverage for abortion and contraceptives. Dolan can't even put two-and-two together and see the obvious self-defeating contradiction and scandalization of having these evil people in his presence. Unbelievable.

Listen to "Fr" Joe from “Catholic”TV.com, Particularly at 1 minute and 32 seconds into the video. He explains to us that it is acceptable for a person who is divorced and remarried in the church to receive Holy Communion. Didn’t Our Lord say What God has joined together let no man put asunder. There's that and more, check it out:

Good standing?

MRyan Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:24 pm

Fatima for our times wrote:
Simple Faith wrote:

So Fatima in which Church are YOU in 'good standing' with (assuming that there is no visible Catholic Church) and who are your present day role models? Who now should we aim to be in 'good standing' with?
There is a visible Church SF; it is visible in all true Catholics who hold the faith which was handed down to us. There always will be a visible Church on earth to the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Oh, brother; heresy, we know thy name.

Session IV of the First Vatican Council:

4 In order, then, that

-- the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that,
-- by the union of the clergy,
-- the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of
-- faith and
-- communion,
-- he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and
-- instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and
-- their visible foundation

Sorry, Ffot, but where is your little "visible remnant Church" included in the infallible dogmatic prescription above?

Guest Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:13 pm

Tony Blair, a “Catholic” in good standing with the V2 “Church” backs gay “marriage”

"Blair takes on the Pope by backing gay marriage"

The ex-PM, a Catholic convert who introduced same-sex civil unions, intervenes over issue that has split the church

Tony Blair has defied the Pope by making clear he "strongly supports" plans for gay marriage, The Independent on Sunday has learnt. The former prime minister, a Catholic since 2007, backs proposals by David Cameron for a new law allowing homosexuals to marry.

A consultation on gay marriage to be launched later this month has met fierce opposition from senior figures in the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England.

On Friday, Pope Benedict XVI urged Catholics to block the "powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage". It followed an attack last week by Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, who said allowing same-sex marriage was "madness" and a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, are also opposed. Last night Dr Williams visited the Pope for private talks at the Vatican, but it was not disclosed whether they discussed the Government's proposals.

Today the campaign against gay marriage is stepped up with a letter from two archbishops to be read to Catholic congregations across England and Wales at mass. The letter will claim that the new law would undermine the institutions of marriage and the family.

But despite the backlash, the Prime Minister and many members of his Cabinet are fully behind the plans. In a significant boost to Mr Cameron, Mr Blair – one of the best known Catholics in Britain – has told friends he "strongly supports the Prime Minister's proposal".

Mr Blair's position is likely to anger the Vatican, which is alarmed at moves in both the UK and the US for same-sex unions. Senior church figures are also opposed to church blessings of same-sex civil partnerships. Mr Blair was responsible for pushing through laws on civil partnerships and lowering the age of consent for homosexuals to 16, but he has remained silent on the issue of gay marriage until now.

When Mr Blair joined the Catholic Church, six months after leaving Downing Street, the Vatican's chief spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said his conversion "can only arouse joy and respect". He joined because his wife, Cherie, is a Catholic and their four children were brought up in the church. But Ann Widdecombe, the former Tory minister and also a Catholic convert, complained that his record as prime minister clashed with the church's teachings.

Lynne Featherstone, the equalities minister who will launch the consultation on the new law, has pointed out that marriage is "owned by the people" and not the church. Throwing his weight behind the plans at his party conference last year, Mr Cameron said: "Society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative; I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative."

Even Tory traditionalists have spoken out in favour of gay marriage. Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, said on Thursday: "I have to say I've changed my mind on this in recent years and I'm rather in favour of gay marriage."

The row overshadowed the meeting between Dr Williams and the Pope last night. Following their talks, they led evening prayers at the church of San Gregorio Magno al Celio as part of celebrations of the 1,000th anniversary of the Camaldolese (Benedictine) monastic family.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/blair-takes-on-the-pope-by-backing-gay-marriage-7555115.html