Expert: Griff Ruby - 12/23/2010

Question
QUESTION: A friend of mine and I have been investigating the intentions of some of our priests in our area with regard to the Mass. I asked my reguler parish priest about the sacrafice of the Mass and what it is all about and while he did say it was a sacrafice and that Jesus does show up I was concerned with one thing. I asked him, "Is the mass primarily a sacrafice?" His exact response was, "That's one of the things that it's about." So I asked him again " Is the mass PRIMARILY a sacrafice?" and he gave the exact same response that he gave above. Should I be concerned? Should I still go to Mass there?

I would also like to know more on the topic of Limbo. I have heard that it is even debated amoung Traditionalists. I know that Fr. Feeny was condemned by Pius XII for believing it, I also heard Bishop Felly in a Sermon on youtube say that the Congragation of the Faith's condemnation of Limbo is poisonious. I right now lean away from belief in Limbo as I regard the notion the unborn children not going to heaven as an overeaction to Modernism, (Not the docterine itself but saying that it must be believed.) That being said I am still new to Tradition and I would like to know your take on it. Is belief in Limbo permissable? Can you show quotes from the Catechism for me, and decrees of Councils, Popes, Scripture, etc...?

ANSWER: About the Mass:  The only "intention" of relevance is whether, in doing the Mass, the priest intends "to do what the Church does" in doing the Mass.  There seems to be some room for interpretation as to how much of what exactly that "what the Church does" would need to be known by the priest, or how defective a priest's knowledge about that could be before threatening the validity of the Mass.  As far as a priest saying such an ambiguous thing regarding the question of whether the Mass is primarily a sacrifice, technically he has not said anything wrong, but in practice his refusal to prioritize among the various ends of the Mass might cast some doubt which can only be resolved by his take on other questions.  Primarily, does he say only the traditional Mass or does he also (or even worse still, only) say the Novus Ordo?  Does he uphold the whole of Catholic morality or is he weak on certain topics (e. g. contraception or abortion or homosexual "marriages" or priestesses, etc.)?  Does he point people to classical catechisms or does he point them to a new one or one of his own writing?  And so forth.  I don't think that concern over a priest, as to whether to attend his Mass, should be determined on a single issue unless that issue be a life-or-death case of the priest being categorically wrong on some point.  Some traditional priests, though believing that the sacrifice aspect of the Mass might be in some way the supreme one, might nevertheless not want any of the lesser ends of the Mass to be neglected, for properly done, the Mass serves all of its intended ends, great and small and everything in between, and it really doesn't do to single out one or another as though the rest did not matter at all, even if all that "rest" might be in some way "less important" than the one main particular end.  So, yes, he might have spoken better, but no, he is by not by any means beyond the pale on that score.
As to Limbo, it is practically a doctrine and has been since at least the earliest several centuries.  There are actually two Limbos, one of the ancient fathers "Limbo of the Fathers" wherein all the Old Testament saints resided until Jesus Christ delivered them up to Heaven.  This is an actual doctrine of the Church, referred to as "hell" in the Apostle's Creed (No, Jesus did not go to the hell of fire and brimstone, but rather to the "hell" to which many Old Testament saints went, a "paradise" though clearly something short of heavenly glory, lacking the sight of God which is afforded those in actual heaven.
Slightly "more speculative" would be the other limbo, namely, the "Limbo of the Infants" which really does not have any known connection to heaven.  This limbo, perhaps similar in nature to the limbo of the Fathers for those in it, does not provide the sight of God, and is generally believed to be a pleasant paradise-like setting.
I have in front of me a rather well-known traditional Catechism titled "My Catholic Faith" (1954 edition) which reads, on page 253, in article 124, "Since infants who die unbaptized have committed no sins, they live in a place of natural happiness called "limbo".  Catholic parents who put off for a long time, or entirely neglect, the Baptism of their children put them in danger of losing heaven and the vision of God eternally.  Although in limbo infants enjoy complete natural happiness surpassing any on earth, such happiness cannot compare with the bliss of heaven, where souls see God face to face.  One is natural, the other supernatural joy."
Fr. Feeney was not condemned by Pope Pius XII for believing in Limbo but for denying that baptism can come in three forms, being 1) by the Sacrament with water, 2) by the Blood of martyrdom, and 3) by a perfect Desire to do what God expects of one.  (2) and (3) only apply in the case where death overtakes a soul, not providing an opportunity for (1).
As for the question that Fr. Feeney has raised, here is the most definitive Catholic response as yet (still a work in progress but compelling even so):
http://www.the-pope.com/BOB_BOD_BOK.html
My extreme apologies for the delay; I hope this helps, God bless!


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Regarding the priest. He is a proiest who offers the NO exclusively. He believes that everyone who is kind will go to heaven and that interfaith marriage is a naturel right. Under the Code of Cannon Law (specifically citing it if you could) could you tell me if I have any obligation to go there, even if it is valid?

With regards to the Limbo of infants, is it a matter of faith that must absolutely be believed, or is it permissable for traditional Catholics to decide for themselves. What do the Church Fathers say with regard to the Limbo of the Infants?

ANSWER: The Novus Ordo ceremony is, by its nature and character, itself a non-Catholic service.  Even if some particular instance of it may attain sacramental validity (and that is rather rare these days), the fact remains that the nature of the service itself is non-Catholic, just like attending a Baptist or Lutheran service.  By virtue of that difference, it matters nothing that the man performing the religious service may be a "legitimate" member of an organization or even were he a legitimate cleric of the Catholic Church.  In the seventeenth Century there were some Catholic priests who were accepting money to say the Mass for the deceased for persons who were not dead (as a way to "pray" for them to please stop living).  As funeral Masses are done in black vestments, they are sometimes called "Black Masses," only this unusual sort of "Black Mass" was the birth of something very wicked, and soon led to other even more blasphemous ceremonies.  And yet for several centuries to follow, those who performed these various sorts of blasphemous ceremonies were still Catholic priests, sometimes even able to do so while remaining "in good standing" (whether through secrecy or bribes, etc.).  Obviously, no matter how "legitimate" a priest may be (and his regular Masses said be obligatory, or capable of fulfilling the Mass obligation, when the man does a ceremony with an alien or selfish or non-Catholic reason or contents obviously such a ceremony cannot be escape being actually sinful to attend.  For this reason, a priest (assuming we have a valid priest to work with, for more and more are not even validly ordained these days) who does both Catholic Masses and Novus Ordo services could still be an acceptable priest for one's Mass as long as it is the Catholic Mass that is attended. One other situation to watch out for in such a circumstance would be if hosts from a non-Catholic and likely invalid service said at the same altar might be handed out to the Catholics attending the Catholic Mass.
So, basically, the non-Catholic service of a Novus Ordo not only cannot oblige, but actually is not for Catholics (though passive attendance for grave reason is permitted for the same sorts of reason that similar passive attendance at a Protestant service would be permitted).
If you have no traditional Mass in your area, or within an hour's travel time (given whatever your means are), then you are as Catholics in missionary territory in which Mass is something attended only rarely, once a month, or once a year, or even once in a lifetime (it becomes a life-changing pilgrimage in that case).
So, attendance at the Novus Ordo should stop.  Now, what to say to people who ask why, the answer is that "I've become a Catholic, and so now I only attend the Catholic Church" (accent on the second word "Catholic").  Then when they ask "Isn't St. Miscellaneous' (or whatever they call the local Novus Ordo franchise) Catholic?" a direct and sincere, "no, it's not" is what comes next.  If there is a traditional Mass you can get to near enough for at least a semi-regular basis, then invite them to come, "Want to see a real Catholic Church?  Come with me this Sunday!" (accent on the word "real")  Either they come and find out or they don't.  For that they must answer.
Another expert here, Fr. Michael, can provide you with the best information as to where to find a real Catholic Mass as near to your location as a possible.  Sometimes they are not so rare as one might think.
On your other question regarding Limbo, whatever distance between the Limbo of the Infants and infallible dogma is so slight that to question or challenge it is uncalled for.  To be included in such as catechism as I have quoted (and it is in others as well) implies sufficient certitude regarding it that any remaining doubts could even be considered sinful.  Really, the only other options are that either the infants suffer eternal pain of sense (as St. Augustine opined) or else Heaven can be entered by some who have not belonged to God in this life by either choice or baptism, itself an idea (no matter how nice sounding) that seriously upsets the whole nature of Revelation and would so undermine the whole Gospel as to nullify it.  So if you really wish to challenge the teaching of Limbo, you might want to give some thought as to what alternative you would propose.
Again, hope all this helps, God bless!

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: I would like to explore this (Limbo of the infants) as in depth as possible. My theory that i admit that my protestant Mother trained me in is as follows

That the unborn and exceedingly young have a relative instinctive knowledge of God from the moment of conception and thus attain baptism of desire. By relative desire, I mean that their age disqualifies them from the extensive knowledge of the Catholic faith otherwise required (For exapmle, a two year old child baptized in the faith is not morally culpable of heresy for not knowing what the immaculete conception is, but a bishop who is unaware of this dogma would be. Therefore, as each soul is made in the image and likeness of God and as we are born aware of our humanity, my thesis states that to some extent that we are born with some level of knowledge of the Holy Trinity and that the devil and the world eventually trains it out of us.

Answer
Interestingly enough there is no "innate" knowledge born within us as to the Trinity or anything else theological.  One has to remember we are born "in Adam" and as such all suffer from his fall from grace.  One must also note that Baptism is (to Christianity) what circumcision is to Judaism, that the sacrament is most commonly received by infants who are too small to make any choice of their own.  It is sort of like the similar "unfairness" of the fact that some children are born of poor parents and others are born of wealthy parents:  Obviously, the wealth (or poverty) experienced by the child is not the child's own making and does not reflect on the choices made by the child anywhere near so much as the choices made by the parents.  This all comes under the responsibility of those who bring children into the world and why so many complicated customs must surround the pairing off of couples (in marriage), the permanency of marriage, the qualifications for marriage (age, faith, career, domestic skills, etc.).  When a child is brought into an inferior condition, whether that of material poverty, or of spiritual poverty (dearth of real faith or guidance) such that their parents do not baptize them or raise them in the Faith, then while the child cannot help but suffer and be worse off, it is the parent who really has done a monstrous thing.
This is why it is that a child who is not baptized cannot enter heaven (for he is born in Adam and Adam's sin, as Sacred Scripture makes clear) but one who is and has not entered the age of accountability (reason) or capability of making real choices really would enter heaven if dying in such a state.  But since the child has made no choices (good or bad), being incapable of that, neither can the child be punished with hellfire, hence the doctrine of limbo.  Some saints have speculated on there being some sort of "second chance" for those in the limbo of the infants to be given some capacity to choose between God or evil, but this is absolute speculation and has absolutely no basis in Scripture nor in any known tradition of the ancients (nor has anyone said that this could not occur...).  There are just some things that we are obliged to simply trust that God knows best and will do right by all creatures, but what exactly that "right" is and how it feels remains to be seen.