It is currently Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:22 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 255 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Sede Religious Orders & una cum discussion 
Author Message

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post 
"Ah, yes, if only!

Feel free to drop in to my place any time, though, Tommy. "


Be careful what you ask for John, I may show up with my clan at your doorstep. :)

Tommy


Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:26 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
brogan,

I realize I began a response to your 'photos', but had not returned thereto for closer examination. However, today when I did so, I noticed the first photo(s) are missing, are they not? If so, is it too much trouble to ask you to 'replace' them, so I might consider the whole section of interest from their book/periodical?

Addendum: I just noticed the Admin's note about the photos. When you get a chance, brogan, I would appreciate your cropping the necessary items (if possible for you to do so).

I am not trying to move on from Mr. Daly's potential comments (ignoring them, etc.) to my most recent post on page 8 (I think). However, as he has likely not had the time to reply (or maybe has not even read my post, being a busy man), I decided to address the 'next in line', if I may use this idea without offense.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:02 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post Reply to Dylan
Dear Dylan,

Now you’re talking. A frank expression of where you’re coming from and why. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate the change of tone and the effort you have made to put your finger on the nub of our disagreement. Below is my attempt to answer the passage that summarises your case.

Quote:
His Excellency Bishop Sanborn wrote:

Objection IV. The lay people can attend the una cum Mass without necessarily consenting to the una cum phrase.

Answer. Active participation in worship is consent to the worship, and one is presumed to consent to everything which is part of the worship. The name of Benedict XVi in the Mass is exactly the same thing as the presence of Benedict XVI in the sanctuary as pope. It is a sign, a declaration of ecclesial communion. Such external and public signs deserve external and public disapproval; active participation gives external consent. Furthermore, the presence of Benedict XVI's name as pope, as principle of unity of the Church, places the entire act of worship in the schismatic category, and not just the little phrase, since it places the entire act of worship outside the Church. But outside the Church there is no salvation.


Bishop Sanborn makes a number of claims here which no doubt seem evident to him but which he does not sufficiently substantiate. The rule in debate is that allegations advanced without proof may be denied without proof and I deny the above claims: I sincerely do not believe them to be true. However, I shall try to be more generous than Bishop Sanborn has been and give an indication of my grounds for dissent.

The premise on which his claims depend is that active participation in worship necessarily entails or at least implies consent to everything which is part of that worship.

But is this so?

Suppose the priest is in a state of mortal sin and thus commits sacrilege by his Mass? Do those who assist consent? The fact may be known: the priest may be publicly living in concubinage. Catholic moralists tell us that in this case we should avoid his Mass if possible but may go to it if no other is available. By doing so we do not consent to the sacrilege.

What if the priest inadvertently but habitually fails adequately to purify the paten and tiny fragments of the thrice-holy and ever-adorable Blessed Sacrament fall to the ground to be trampled? Old priests with poor eyesight sometimes do this terrible thing and may simply be exasperated and incredulous if a layman tries to tell them of the problem. If I know this and cannot stop it, must I deprive myself of the sacraments rather than assist? Who would say so?

What if the priest is offering the Mass under stipend for an intention which I cannot but gravely disapprove of? Suppose he announces the intention at the beginning of Mass as some priests do, and it is, for instance, for the victory of an army whose cause he thinks to be just but which I know to be unjust?

Finally, take the following hypothesis. (Catholic casuistry manuals often use improbable hypotheses to shed light on principles.) There is a holy old Dutch Catholic missionary priest who has been working alone, lost in the deepest valleys of Papua New Guinea, since the 1950s. For nearly fifty years he has had no contact whatever with civilisation. He knows nothing of Vatican II and while he realises that in all probability Pius XII is dead, he does not know who is the reigning pope. One day, a group of Dutch Protestants ride through the valley. Hailing them, he asks in rusty Dutch the name of the reigning pontiff. They say: “Benedict XVI” and from then on the missionary puts the words “una cum famulo tuo papa nostro Benedicto” in his Mass. Shortly afterwards, a group of sound sedevacantist Catholics journeying in Papua meet the old priest with joy and wish to go to his Mass. Alas they do not speak Dutch and cannot really communicate with the priest. They understand just that he names Benedict, but cannot begin to explain to him why he shouldn’t. Now to say that this priest’s “entire act of worship” is “in the schismatic category” and “outside the Church” would surely be ludicrous. To refuse to assist at his Mass would surely be a case of crazy scruples, would it not? It would be as ridiculous as to refuse to assist at Bishop Sanborn’s Mass because he includes the name “Benedictus” in the “Sanctus” when he says “Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini” (or does he say “sedes apostolica qui venit in nomine Domini” these days?) :)

Please, gentle reader, do not point out that this is not in all respects the same as the case of the traditional priest who really believes that the Bavarian heretic is pope. That is not the point. The point is that particular arguments must start from universal principles. And once one detects a single exception to the allegedly universal principle, one has proved that it is not universal at all. When the major premise has been shown not to be universally true, the conclusion flowing from it no longer has any value at all. The arguer must go back to his universal premise and replace it by one that is truly universal and demonstrably true. And he must do so knowing that his new premise is going to be examined very critically. When the first loaf the baker offers you turns out to be mouldy inside, you don’t take the second one he offers without looking under the wrapper.

I think I have shown that it is not always true that “active participation in worship necessarily entails or at least implies consent to everything which is part of that worship” and therefore that I am entitled not to be convinced by the case that reposes on that claim.

May the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus unite all minds in truth and all hearts in charity.

John Daly

PS On a personal note Dylan, and just for the record, I didn’t “brag about my knowledge”. I specifically complained of your for lack of respect towards Mr. Lane, not myself. Despite resemblances and a conspiracy theory sometimes advanced, we are two different people. I added a general rule: “it is wise to proportionate one's confidence to the degree of one's knowledge.” Obviously that applies to all of us and most of us go too far at times. In fact the really wise man expresses himself with even less confidence than he is entitled to. At least I think he does :wink:


Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:26 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post Fr H. Belmont and Fr O. Baker on Mass "una cum"...
The name of Fr. Hervé Belmont has been mentioned in this thread as a supporter of the harsh view concerning assistance at Masses in which Benedict is named. I’d like to allow him to clarify his view in his own words. I don’t agree with all of what follows, but it seems to me in practice to favour the milder view. I may add that Fr. Belmont has more knowledge of St Thomas in the lobe of his left ear than most of us have in our whole carcase.

Quote:
The naming of the sovereign pontiff in the Canon of the Mass is of particular gravity, first because of the holiness of this prayer, which is the most precious, the most solemn and the most efficacious of the whole of the Church’s liturgy – that prayer which is the heart of the mystery of the faith…

…It is certain that none of the faithful may give formal co-operation to the “una cum Joanne-Paulo” uttered by a priest in the Canon of the Mass; it is impossible to unite oneself with such an act which expresses allegiance to a false rule of faith and proclaims sacramental dependence on one who is not the head of the Church’s true sacraments.

Is it possible to assist at Mass celebrated “una cum” without giving this morally inadmissible formal co-operation; in other words, is it possible to give only a morally permissible material co-operation?

We think it is, on the following two conditions:

    1. interior refusal of the “una cum” and protestation before God of the intention of respecting all the requirements of the Catholic Faith;
    2. a grave (i.e. proportionate) reason for doing so. Obviously such sufficient reasons would not include avoidance of a long journey or fatigue, more convenient Mass-times, dislike of such-and-such a person. But the need to place one’s children in a school with good moral standards or not to expose oneself to a perilous deprivation of the sacraments can constitute this grave reason.
In short, this assistance at a Mass tainted by the “una cum” must not be voluntary; it must be unavoidable. We shall perhaps be reproached by some with lack of rigour on this point, but we fear to incur the reproach Our Lord addressed to the Pharisees: “They bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them.”

(Bulletin Notre–Dame de la Sainte-Espérance, no. 98, July 1994)

Here is a complementary text from the late Fr. Oswald Baker, who needs no recommendation from me:
Quote:
“…It is understandable that there is now some perplexity about attending St Pius X Society Masses. It is of course different from attending the new ‘Mass’. A priest in the Conciliar Church shares the erroneous beliefs and obeys the instructions of Wojtyla, leader of a false religion, false because its errors include the tenets of Vatican II. In practice, Lefebvre rejects both the commands and heresies of Wojtyla, his acknowledgement of whom can be regarded as a theoretical error of mistaken identity. Lefebvre is not spurning the pope or the Pope’s subjects, he is not heretical, for he accepts all Catholic doctrines, and his Mass and sacraments are undeniably Catholic, despite his lamentable acceptance of the debated ‘John XXIII reforms’. Given the extreme abnormality of a situation in which Wojtyla is all but universally accepted as Pope, the faithful who would otherwise be deprived of the life-giving sacraments are in my view entitled to ignore Lefebvre’s professed allegiance and attend the Masses of his priests. Lefebvre is not an agent of Wojtyla as a Conciliar ‘priest’ is, and though his misunderstanding concerning the John Paul and the Conciliar Church may annoy, depress or even horrify, it does not debar stranded, stricken Catholics from the ministrations of his priests. I do of course refuse the use of my altar to any priest who puts John Paul’s name in the canon, but this is surely not inconsistent. My altar and oratory are private property, the priest is not in dire need and suffers no deprivation, there are other altars available (there is a Wojtyla church next door), and I must do what I can to impress on a priest the error of his ways. Similarly a layman too has, opportunity offering, an obligation to intimate his protest against the insertion of John-Paul’s name, but having done so he is entitled to assist at a Mass which is neither heretical nor to my mind schismatic….
Supporters of the St Pius X Society are in my view entitled to complete certainty that none of the priests serving them was ‘ordained’ merely in the disputed new rite, whether vernacular or Latin. When such certainty is not assured, about any particular celebrant, the faithful should refuse to attend his Mass…”

(Downham Market parish bulletin, October 1983)


Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:35 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post Late reply to Eamon Shea
Nearly all of this is from Eamon, to remind readers what he said. My comments are in a different colour.

Eamon Shea wrote:
John Daly wrote:
Quote:
Although we may not utter a single word with our mouths while at Mass, do we not utter each and every one with our hearts, in union with the man who is uttering them with his mouth?


Eamon, may I question this claim? Or rather ask you to prove that it is true?

The priest at Mass uses the Church's approved liturgy and we can safely associate ourselves with every word of it. But he also includes (or omits) the name of a bishop and a pope, the persons living and dead for whom he wishes to pray, and (mentally) the intention for which he is offering the Mass; These points are inaudible. Indeed at High Mass the rubrics require the Master of Ceremonies to withdraw so that he does not hear the intentions of the Mementos. What is the evidence that the faithful by the fact of assisting at a Mass necessarily associate themselves with and share these prayers, intentions, recognitions?


Mr. Daly,

I hope and trust you are well. I do not know if you watch football, but I saw England won their opening match (although they need to get it together if they desire to advance very far in the WC). To all Aussie football fans, I wish your country well in its WC debut. Brazil await in the second match, if I recall, which is a tall order indeed.

I believe we are all agreed that those who assist - whether layman or cleric, whether in the pew or sanctuary - are co-offerers at Holy Mass. There is normally only one sacrificing priest, but there are many co-offerers of the Mass (some of whom are not even present), as it is the supreme public prayer of Holy Church.

We are likewise agreed that, in the present-day Latin rite anyway, the prayers of the sacred canon are largely inaudible, even to the servers (depending on the particular priest's voice). Does this make these prayers "private" prayers? Imo, no, but we will touch upon that more, I am sure. As an aside, the once-a-year public offering in the OT times could not even be seen by anyone other than the High Priest, as it was hidden beind the veil. I believe we would all agree that this prayer was not private, although it was unseen - but this is a digression.

What are the words of the prayer in question, namely the Te igitur? "Wherefore, we humbly pray...we offer up to Thee...etc" Now, it would seem strange to speak in the first person plural if the priest is speaking only for himself in this place (that is, if the fact that it is a priestly action meant we had no part in it). Again, I understand it is inaudible (to almost everyone, except perhaps the servers), but I maintain that audible and public are not synonymous in this context. There is a sacramental Priesthood (large letter 'P'), to be sure, but there is also a priesthood (small letter 'p') of all believers. We are all priests in this sense, and we come to the public worship of Holy Church that we may co-offer the Holy Sacrifice.

If I am present at the Holy Sacrifice in order to act as a co-offerer (indeed, that is expressly why we go to Mass), and if the prayers being offered are public prayers, it would seem that, although my lips may move not at all, I am co-offering the public prayers said by the Priest - or rather, I am praying with the Priest. Your thoughts to the contrary, if any, are most welcome.


Eamon, I agree that the whole of the Mass, even the silent parts, is, technically at least, a public prayer.

I agree that the priest repeatedly indicates in the liturgy that he is not alone in offering but does so with others, though of course there is a difference in the manner in which the celebrant offers and the manner in which the layman offers.

I agree that the laity should usually be offering Mass with and through the priest, with and through the Church, with and through Jesus Christ – though I fear that this does not always happen in practice.

I do not agree that in offering the Mass the laity are obliged by any necessity, moral or physical, to associate themselves with every accidental aspect of the priest’s offering. If I join my sister in offering a bunch of flowers to our mother I do not necessarily consent to the gushy wording my sister puts on the card, though it might be indiscreet to say so at the time :) See the text quoted from Fr. Belmont who is generally supposed to be on your side.


Quote:
I realize there has been much digression in this thread, which is somewhat normal on a forum (as it is not just a simple conversation among two or three men, but is 'enterable' by all). Indeed, this thread started as something totally different than it has become, complete with an entirely different topic.

Despite all digressions (including those I have caused or played a part in), my hope is that we can address the main points presented by both sides.

As a final note, I noticed you recommended The Mystery of Faith by Maurice de la Taille, S.J. to Dylan. On page 316, Book II, we read:

"This was all the more reasonable, because priests gradually became accustomed to mention no living person in these public suffrages of the Church, except such as could be reckoned among those with whom he was considered to be offering the sacrifice."

On page 317 of the same volume we find these words: "The same is clear from the actual formula found in our own Roman Church ... where the celebrant says: 'WE OFFER ... together with our Pope N. and our Bishop N. (and our king N.) and with all orthodox worshippers of the Catholic and apostolic faith.' "

The capitalization and the elipsis (...) within his own quotation of the prayer are in de la Taille's original text. The main idea is the oblation, as opposed to intercession, although this text will likely come into play later in our discussion.


Eamon, just as it is possible to go to Mass without consenting to every word the priest says, so it is possible to recommend a book without agreeing with every word in it. As it happens I prefer Dom Guéranger’s exegesis of the Te Igitur to Fr de la Taille’s. But it doesn’t matter. For one thing the question is freely disputed. For another I don’t believe the answer will make any difference to my view on the lawfulness of assisting, for proportionate reason, at Mass in which Benedict is named as pope. Those priests who name Benedict in their Mass do indeed think that Benedict is offering Mass with them. They’re wrong. He isn’t. Some of the laity assisting realise that.

Thanks for updating me on the sports news, by the way. Unfortunately I am one of those who have to get out an illustrated encyclopaedia to remind myself which of these games are played with spheroids and which ones with ellipsoids. In fact I am as out of touch as Euro-MP Otto von Hapsburg who, when asked whether he had watched the Austria-Hungary match, replied: “No. Who were we playing?” :D

May the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus unite all minds in truth and all hearts in charity.

John Daly


Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:07 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Schoolboy!?!
Dylan Byrne wrote:
So I guess to a certain extent you are right, our alienation from those catholics who have failed to reject Benedict XVI may have given them some kind of indifference to the question. But then again is an evil justified even if it does yield some good fruits?


Never. But that is why I said that the point is only accidental, not essential. We must not do anything intrinsically evil for any reason, but if we find that our actions are producing evil results, it ought to be a motive for reviewing our theoretical position.

Dylan Byrne wrote:
However His Excellency is right,


Please have a good long think about this. Asked who your teacher was, you replied "Bishop Sanborn." Asked where his proofs were, you conceded that they are lacking, but affirmed that he is right all the same. How do you know?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post Re: Questions for Eamon
Zelie wrote:
1) Do you believe SSPX priests are "plain schismatics"?
2) Are you in communion with SSPX una-cum priests?
3) Would you attend a valid mass where a validly ordained Catholic priest mentions the name of an undeclared schismatic or heretic in the Te Igitur, whilst you otherwise publicly witness against this schismatic or heretic?


Zelie,

My apologies for not responding sooner, but there have been goings-on -- both on and off-stage, if you will -- that made me believe it was wiser to wait. I hope you understand my reasons for doing so, even if you do not (and cannot) know the details, or disagree with my chosen path of action.

The answer to the first question is: that is between God and the individual priest. I do believe, however, that the position of the Society as an organization is illogical, troubled, and schismatic (in that they run a world-wide apostolate against the express wishes of the man they claim is the Vicar of Christ, setting up altar against altar/table/whatever, passing judgment upon Novus annulments, and the fact that there is an 'official document' that excommunicates their leadership core for a schismatic act, etc.). As for the separate question of the individual priests...as I said, that is between them and the Lord Almighty. I am personally convinced that many individual priests are mistaken in good faith (although I clearly cannot know for certain, either way, at this point), but my comments from an earlier page were not focused on individuals, but the SSPX as a whole - as an organization.

The answer to the second question is a qualified, "Yes, although I refrain from co-operating with them in the most concrete expression of their mistaken notions about the V2 'Church' and the heads thereof." As Mr. Lane has elsewhere mentioned his desire to leave "conspiracy" items out of the discussion, I shall leave it to another time and place to explain myself further (if that should become necessary or desireable).

The answer to question three is, to the chagrin of some perhaps, a question (or three): "Is the heretic (apostate in our present case) publicly known to be so? Is he likewise the indisputably true head of a false 'anti-Church'? Is this true head of a false 'anti-Church' mentioned in the Te igitur as the one principle of unity in the entire, True, Catholic Church?"

I thank you for your patience, Zelie (as well the patience of all who have been, for whatever reason, following this thread). Feel free to offer a response, to which I promise I will also respond, although I cannot promise the time-frame in which I will do so. God speed.

I realize Mr. Daly gave an answer to one of my recent posts, and my remarks to Zelie were not intended, in any way, to be an unmanly circumvention of Mr. Daly's remarks. I will respond to them when I am able to devote the necessary time, thanking, in advance, Mr. Daly et alii for their patience.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:42 pm
Posts: 10
New post Distinctions?
Dear Eamon,

This has not made things any clearer, but thank you for trying.

Z.


Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:38 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post Nature of schism
Eamon,

Whether a man is or is not a schismatic is never just a matter between God and himself.

The Catholic Church is an externally visible society with externally verifiable conditions of membership. Otherwise you have an invisible spiritual church - and that is a condemned heresy.

Every attempt to show that it is necessarily a sin to assist at the "una cum" Mass of a Catholic priest has manifestly come to grief.

It was inevitable that those who are deeply attached to this position would take the further, Gwynnite, step of trying to deny that the priest in this condition is really Catholic at all.

That is a worse error and more blatant. You can't cease to be a Catholic for failing to draw correct inferences. You can only cease to be a Catholic for direct refusal of what the Church herself directly teaches.

The Church herself has not pronounecd on Benedict. We're sure what she'll say as to his legitimacy if she does pronounce. But she hasn't. That's why those who haven't yet understood are not for that reason schismatics, no matter what vague edulcorating adjective you prefix to "schismatic".

John


Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:02 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 2:17 pm
Posts: 13
New post Re: Nature of schism
John Daly wrote:
The Church herself has not pronounecd on Benedict. We're sure what she'll say as to his legitimacy if she does pronounce. But she hasn't. That's why those who haven't yet understood are not for that reason schismatics, no matter what vague edulcorating adjective you prefix to "schismatic".



Canon 2314.1:
Quote:
All apostates from the Christian faith, and all heretics and schismatics: (1) are ipso facto excommunicated.


There's no need to wait for a Church declaration, as it would merely show that an excommunication already took place. Once you have the evidence which proves beyond all doubt that someone is a heretic and make the right conclusions, that's it.

Now, Catholics who do not know about these matters are not going to be penalized, although it would be highly advisable to point this stuff out to them as soon as possible, lest their faith get put in jeopardy later.

Please note that the Church can and has made laws which provide for an automatic excommunication as a penalty for committing certain offenses.


Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:52 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:13 pm
Posts: 21
New post 
At the very least, I think one could make the argument that both sides of the question are defended by learned and prudent men, so according to the rule of probabilism (if we are probabilists, which I hope :) ), we may consider that we are free to follow the more lenient opinion until it is proven wrong, since it has a sufficiently firm foundation.

Thus, if my reasoning is correct, I think even people who are anti-una-cum cannot maintain that, objectively, anyone is forbidden to attend an "una cum" Mass. If a question of moral theology has strong defenders on both sides, people are free to follow whichever opinion they wish.


Last edited by Penrod Schofield on Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:12 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post Re: Nature of schism
Hudson Jackson II wrote:
Canon 2314.1:
Quote:
All apostates from the Christian faith, and all heretics and schismatics: (1) are ipso facto excommunicated.


There's no need to wait for a Church declaration, as it would merely show that an excommunication already took place. Once you have the evidence which proves beyond all doubt that someone is a heretic and make the right conclusions, that's it.



Hudson,

Please excuse a late reply on this, which I hadn't noticed before.

The questions is: "there's no need to wait for a Church declaration" before doing what?

I'm maintaining that there's no need to wait for a Church declaration before concluding that the V2 "popes" were not true popes. But there is need to wait for a Church declaration of this fact before concluding that all those who haven't yet realised it are in schism.

As I read the reminder of your post it seems to me that we are broadly in agreement on this distinction.

John D


Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:03 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 2:17 pm
Posts: 13
New post Re: Nature of schism
John Daly wrote:
The questions is: "there's no need to wait for a Church declaration" before doing what?

I'm maintaining that there's no need to wait for a Church declaration before concluding that the V2 "popes" were not true popes. But there is need to wait for a Church declaration of this fact before concluding that all those who haven't yet realised it are in schism.


I was basically addressing your earlier statement. In other words, there's no need to wait for a Church declaration to make such a conclusion. ("Once you have the evidence which proves beyond all doubt that someone is a heretic and make the right conclusions, that's it.")

John Daly wrote:
As I read the reminder of your post it seems to me that we are broadly in agreement on this distinction.


Almost. The issue of whether Benedict XVI is the pope or not ties into dogma. It's not just about whether he is Catholic or not, but also whether the people in question accept his heresies by way of omission.

This means in some cases (at least), one must denounce Benedict XVI as an apostate and label him as antipope, in order to not violate Canon 1325.1, which states that the faithful must "profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor."

Now, let's talk about the bishops. Because they (including cardinals, metropolitans, patriarchs, and the pope) are members of the Teaching Church, it would have to follow that they are obligated to know the doctrines of the Catholic faith - basic and deeper dogmas included. (How can a bishop teach if he does not know the Catholic faith? Not only that, if a bishop were to teach heresy, the tendency would be for many under his care to follow him - and eventually out of the Church.)

From the Second Council of Nicea, Canon 2:
Quote:
Since we make an undertaking before God as we sing, I shall meditate on your judgments, I shall not neglect your words, it is essential to our salvation that every Christian should observe these things, but more especially those who have been invested with priestly dignity. Therefore we decree that
* everyone who is to be advanced to the grade of bishop should have a thorough knowledge of the psalter, in order that he may instruct all the clergy subordinate to him, to be initiated in that book.
* He should also be examined without fail by the metropolitan to see if he is willing to acquire knowledge--a knowledge that should be searching and not superficial--of the sacred canons, the holy gospel, the book of the divine apostle, and all divine scripture;
* also if he is willing to conduct himself and teach the people entrusted to him according to the divine commandments.

"The substance of our hierarchy are the words handed down from God", that is to say, the true knowledge of the divine scriptures, as the great Dionysius made plain. If someone is doubtful and ill at ease with such conduct and teaching, let him not be ordained. For God said through the prophet: You rejected knowledge, and I shall reject you, so that you may not serve me in a priestly function.


So there can be no excuse for bishops not making the proper conclusions where it concerns the status of Benedict XVI. Bishop Lefebvre, for instance, could identify heresy in Vatican II, he could identify the heresies of Paul VI and John Paul II (as an example). However, he has failed to come to proper conclusions on the status of both of them and openly denounce both as apostates and antipopes. He has, to my knowledge, always referred to them as Catholics and as popes. Such acts are evidence of heresy (actually apostasy) by way of omission, and evidence of schism.

I should have clarified. . ehem. . . qualified one of my earlier statements from the previous post by adding that laymen (and priests, to an extent) could claim invincible ignorance about this matter because it involves matters of the faith which they are not bound to know (they do not involve basic dogmas, in other words). They are not held to as high a standard as prelates are. But even with this acknowledgement, there is a certain point where laymen and priests are bound to know a particular Catholic teaching. For instance, if a layman is asked a question about a Catholic dogma (other than a basic dogma) he doesn't know the answer to, he is bound to go seek the answer (as opposed to rely on his guess). (Perhaps we can discuss this particular issue in another thread so as not to get sidetracked from our current discussion.)

So, for some people at least, it's not a matter of whether they have realized, but rather whether they should have realized.

(As a side note, I expect to get irregular access to the Internet over the next several days, so it may take longer for me to reply to any posts. I apologize for this, but I'm trying to resolve this as soon as possible.)


Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:12 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 2:17 pm
Posts: 13
New post 
Penrod Schofield wrote:
At the very least, I think one could make the argument that both sides of the question are defended by learned and prudent men, so according to the rule of probabilism (if we are probabilists, which I hope :) ), we may consider that we are free to follow the more lenient opinion until it is proven wrong, since it has a sufficiently firm foundation.

Thus, if my reasoning is correct, I think even people who are anti-una-cum cannot maintain that, objectively, anyone is forbidden to attend an "una cum" Mass. If a question of moral theology has strong defenders on both sides, people are free to follow whichever opinion they wish.


In a sense, yes. I would not have a problem with those who believe Benedict XVI is the pope, provided they never knew about his heresies and had no reason to suspect he was a heretic - or even if they know he is a heretic, they don't know about the infallible teachings that (a) heretics and schismatics are outside the Church and (b) non-Catholics can not hold an office within the Church (cf. Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio). (That's assuming such people are not in schism and are not heretics otherwise, of course.)

But whatever happened to following the safer course? This is directed to those who are aware of the fact Benedict XVI is an apostate antipope. Wouldn't it be better not to attend an "una cum" Mass as a safer course of action, lest we ourselves present an opportunity for scandal? I can imagine what would happen if I went to an SSPX chapel again and saw someone who recognized me and that person said, "Hey, I remember you. . . but wait, I thought you were a sedevacantist. . . what brings you here today?" with a surprise look.

I also wouldn't want to answer for the instances of sacrilege that may take place by a non-Catholic administering/receiving the sacraments when I appear before Our Lord at the time of judgment.


Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:34 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Griffin, GA
New post 
We lay people cannot know for sure that Benedict is not the pope. Remember that the first Pope St. Peter abandoned Our Lord during His agony and crucifixion. St. Peter denied Christ three times. He was afraid of being discovered and went and hid. Previously he had tried to walk on the water, but lost his faith and started to drown. But Our Lord knew that Peter would always come back. We have to pray that Benedict will recover his faith and when he has converted, he will confirm his bretheren. (See St. Luke Ch.22 vs 32.)

_________________
"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."


Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:16 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Hudson,

Commenting on my words

Quote:
As I read the reminder of your post it seems to me that we are broadly in agreement on this distinction


you reply

Quote:
Almost. The issue of whether Benedict XVI is the pope or not ties into dogma. It's not just about whether he is Catholic or not, but also whether the people in question accept his heresies by way of omission.


Right, now I see what you're getting at and we are very decidedly not in agreement, I'm afraid. And the reason seems to me that you are not following what Catholic authorities teach about how to identify heresy and schism. I'll intersperse a few comments or questions.

Quote:
This means in some cases (at least), one must denounce Benedict XVI as an apostate and label him as antipope, in order to not violate Canon 1325.1, which states that the faithful must "profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor."

JSD: Your application of Canon 1325 to the status of Benedict XVI seems to me to be abusive because his non-papal status is not an object of faith. Yes, let me repeat that, it is not an object of faith. Certainly we may reach certainty that he is not pope by applying reason to known facts in the light of what faith teaches, but our conclusions formed in this way are not acts of faith. We have faith in what God has revealed. God has not revealed that Benedict is not pope. We also use the expression "ecclesiastical faith" for truths not directly revealed but which the Church directly teaches us. But the Church does not directly teach us that Benedict is not pope. The distinction between what the Church teaches and the application made by fallible mortals like us of that teaching to concrete situations is clear and there must be no confusing the two things.

Quote:
Now, let's talk about the bishops. Because they (including cardinals, metropolitans, patriarchs, and the pope) are members of the Teaching Church, it would have to follow that they are obligated to know the doctrines of the Catholic faith - basic and deeper dogmas included. (How can a bishop teach if he does not know the Catholic faith? Not only that, if a bishop were to teach heresy, the tendency would be for many under his care to follow him - and eventually out of the Church.)


JSD: I agree that Bishops have such an obligation both morally and legally. Alas not all bishops fulfilled that obligation.

Quote:
From the Second Council of Nicea, Canon 2:
Quote:
Since we make an undertaking before God as we sing, I shall meditate on your judgments, I shall not neglect your words, it is essential to our salvation that every Christian should observe these things, but more especially those who have been invested with priestly dignity. Therefore we decree that
* everyone who is to be advanced to the grade of bishop should have a thorough knowledge of the psalter, in order that he may instruct all the clergy subordinate to him, to be initiated in that book.
* He should also be examined without fail by the metropolitan to see if he is willing to acquire knowledge--a knowledge that should be searching and not superficial--of the sacred canons, the holy gospel, the book of the divine apostle, and all divine scripture;
* also if he is willing to conduct himself and teach the people entrusted to him according to the divine commandments.

"The substance of our hierarchy are the words handed down from God", that is to say, the true knowledge of the divine scriptures, as the great Dionysius made plain. If someone is doubtful and ill at ease with such conduct and teaching, let him not be ordained. For God said through the prophet: You rejected knowledge, and I shall reject you, so that you may not serve me in a priestly function. So there can be no excuse for bishops not making the proper conclusions where it concerns the status of Benedict XVI.


Er, you're going a bit fast for me there, Hudson. Is Benedict's status mentioned in the Psalms somewhere? I grant that a bishop who has fully respected his duties of thorough knowledge of theology and Canon Law should be able to spot that Vatican II and the new religion emerging from it are not Catholic and should reject them, but you are going a lot further than that and a lot further than you have proved.

Quote:
Bishop Lefebvre, for instance, could identify heresy in Vatican II, he could identify the heresies of Paul VI and John Paul II (as an example). However, he has failed to come to proper conclusions on the status of both of them and openly denounce both as apostates and antipopes. He has, to my knowledge, always referred to them as Catholics and as popes. Such acts are evidence of heresy (actually apostasy) by way of omission, and evidence of schism.

Once again, Hudson, you're going so fast you don't seem conscious of how many steps you're completely missing out. Granted that Archbishop Lefebvre should have spotted the heresies of Paul VI and John-Paul II, for instance. In some cases he did. But what if he doubted whether they were pertinacious in the full sense of that term? Is that doubt a heresy? Or what about if he followed the opinion of Cajetan, Suarez, Journet, Bouix and other respectable theologians that a heretical pope does not lose his office automatically? Is that too a heresy?

Certainly he failed to come to proper conclusions about them. Given the duty of all Catholics not to accuse others of very grave sins without necessity, common sense suggests to me the explanation that he was not as well trained in theology as he should have been and did not reflect as carefully as he ought to have and was weakly hesitant in drawing terrifying conclusions. Charity would observe that he was probably afraid of falling into heresy by ending up with a Church lacking in visibility or by apparently denying the perpetuity of the papacy. I know there are answers to these points. But let us not forget that the crisis is also a frightening mystery - the mystery of iniquity. Let us not forget that we shall be judged as harshly as we have judged our neighbour. Archbishop Lefebvre is our neighbour.

I note also that you refer several times to "heresy by way of omission". It is true that there are cases in which the omission of a certain act unequivocally manifests heresy. But the failure to denounce a heretic who apparently occupies the see of Peter and subtly veils his heresies is not one recognised by any theologian I have studied on this point. The reason is that so many other factors could account for it. And in any event, Archbishop Lefebvre did denounce Paul VI and John-Paul II and vigorously condemn their heresies. He failed to see that they were definitely not popes. By the way, have you not observed that your accusation of heresy and schism against those bishops who remain in communion with a heretical usurper of the Holy See is opposed to Cum Ex Apostolatus?


Quote:
I should have clarified. . ehem. . . qualified one of my earlier statements from the previous post by adding that laymen (and priests, to an extent) could claim invincible ignorance about this matter because it involves matters of the faith which they are not bound to know (they do not involve basic dogmas, in other words). They are not held to as high a standard as prelates are. But even with this acknowledgement, there is a certain point where laymen and priests are bound to know a particular Catholic teaching. For instance, if a layman is asked a question about a Catholic dogma (other than a basic dogma) he doesn't know the answer to, he is bound to go seek the answer (as opposed to rely on his guess). (Perhaps we can discuss this particular issue in another thread so as not to get sidetracked from our current discussion.)

JSD. There is nothing to discuss until you produce some serious authorities, Hudson. If a layman is asked a question about Catholic dogma to which he doesn't know the answer he is not "bound to go and seek the answer" unless there is some special motive for doing so that you have not mentioned. He is bound to go and carry out the duties of his state of life.

Quote:
So, for some people at least, it's not a matter of whether they have realized, but rather whether they should have realized.

JSD: Yes, Hudson, but that "whether they should have realised" is a judgment of the internal forum that belongs only to God. It has nothing to do with the conditions for membership of the Catholic Church. One ceases to be a Catholic by refusing dogmas one is evidently aware of. Erring about dogmas one is culpably unaware of is sinful but the name of that sin is not heresy and it does not exclude one from the Church. That is what Catholic theologians teach on this subject.

Here is one example: “Should anyone commit these sins [apostasy, heresy, schism] as a result of ignorance which is even gravely culpable...he is free from the delict[of heresy], which requires pertinacity.”

(Vermeersch, A., S.J., JCD, Professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University, (1936), Epitome Iuris Canonici Cum Commentariis (Mechlin), ed. 5, iii, 311)

Here's another, St Thomas: “schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church…” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q.39, A.1)

And here's another: St Alphonsus Liguori: “No one is a heretic as long as he is disposed to submit his judgment to the Church, or does not know that the Church of Christ holds the contrary, even if he defends his opinion doggedly through culpable or even crass ignorance.” (Theol. Moral. lib. 3, n. 19)

I think everyone reading this exchange can see how very far your judgments are from those of these theologians - and I could quote plenty more because their doctrine is standard.

I know how exasperating it is to see so many men failing to reach the conclusion that the See is vacant - a conclusion that to us is so evident and flows so clearly from the application of sound theology to the facts. But let us not allow our exasperation to provoke us into the habit of severe judgment of our neighbour's faults and weaknesses or, worse still, of cheerfully "booting out of the Church" all those we think don't deserve to be in it. We should be very far from the example of the saints and very far from the teaching of the theologians if we acted in such a way.

If we have "passed the test" of working out what to think of Vatican II, Benedict XVI and all their works and pomps, let us thank God on our knees for that grace and endeavour to "pass the test" of remaining charitable also.

God bless!

John


Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:27 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post Re: Late reply to Eamon Shea
John,

I apologize for the delay in responding, but I have been otherwise occupied lately, as I am beginning to work full-time for the first time since I got in a rather serious car accident. My stamina is not yet what it once was.

John Daly wrote:
Eamon, I agree that the whole of the Mass, even the silent parts, is, technically at least, a public prayer.


I am pleased we are agreed that the Mass - and more particularly, the part under discussion - is a public prayer, technicalities aside. A rather interesting aside (which cannot, imo, be said to be a mere technicality) is that the prayers in question are not silent in the Eastern rites (at which Mr. Lane admitted he would assist, provided certain other things were in order). I believe there is even a response to these prayers in (some of) the Eastern rites.

Quote:
I do not agree that in offering the Mass the laity are obliged by any necessity, moral or physical, to associate themselves with every accidental aspect of the priest’s offering.


A) This is not, imo, some "accidental" aspect

B) The Te igitur is, in fact, a public prayer that is part of the very heart of the Mass, the Canon

C) Although you initially asked me to prove that we are joined to the priest in his profession of communion, etc, it would seem the burden for proof lies with those who argue that it is possible to actively participate by way of assistance at a public Mass, as a co-offerer, and yet somehow refrain from being united in one particular part - while remaining present and being silent, as silence would seem to indicate consent (and the contrary would need to be proved, imo). I believe that the layman in the pew simply cannot help associating himself with the priest, given that he is actively assisting the priest. If he 'disassociates' himself, it would have to be proven that such is acceptable, or even possible (while remaining present and silent).

Quote:
Eamon, just as it is possible to go to Mass without consenting to every word the priest says, so it is possible to recommend a book without agreeing with every word in it.


This sentence seems backwards to me, as you place the thing to be proved first, and in a way that makes it seem already proven. What I mean is that it would, imo, go better like so:

"Just as it is possible to recommend a book without agreeing with every word in it (something we agree upon), so is it possible... (the part that is disputed)"

Quote:
Thanks for updating me on the sports news, by the way. Unfortunately I am one of those who have to get out an illustrated encyclopaedia to remind myself which of these games are played with spheroids and which ones with ellipsoids.


You are welcome, although your fellow countrymen lost recently (although those of your adopted homeland took out the heavily-favored Brazilians).

I have one question, as well: Does anyone know who, if anyone, the SSPX priests name as the Bishop in their Masses? The 'local ordinary'? One of their own bishops? If they leave out the local ordinary, on what grounds do they do this? If they mention one of their own, on what grounds do they do this? Thank you for any information.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:47 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
As the years increase without a pope/hierarchy, issues will continue to come to the fore that were not considered years ago.


Which has been quite a normal process over the decades since Vatican II (although the frequency of the issues has naturally lessened). The resistance, sede and non-sede, did not come in a nice package, ready for usage in 1958, 1965, or 1968/9, etc.

Quote:
I am going to start a new thread about this as well as the issue of belonging to a non-apostolic, non-juridical, non-visible church that has no virtue of obedience being practiced anywhere, and how long that really can be considered a proper response to this crisis.


As I will be unable to join your discussion in this proposed new thread, I would say that you may want to begin by establishing the fact that anyone (everyone?) here is a member of a "non-apostolic, non-juridical, non-visible church". In order to do this, I would start by defining each of the terms - 'apostolic', 'juridical', 'visible'. Imo, this is rarely done when having these conversations, and it leads to much unintended confusion, as the participants are talking about two different things without realizing it. In particular, 'visible' is seemingly never adequately defined by those who charge the Church is, according to the sede-vacantist argumentation, presently invisible.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:13 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
As I will be unable to join your discussion in this proposed new thread, I would say that you may want to begin by establishing the fact that anyone (everyone?) here is a member of a "non-apostolic, non-juridical, non-visible church". In order to do this, I would start by defining each of the terms - 'apostolic', 'juridical', 'visible'. Imo, this is rarely done when having these conversations, and it leads to much unintended confusion, as the participants are talking about two different things without realizing it. In particular, 'visible' is seemingly never adequately defined by those who charge the Church is, according to the sede-vacantist argumentation, presently invisible.


I intend to address this issue (non-apostolic, non-jurisdictional, non-visible) from a layman's point of view. However, I will assume most of this audience knows or can quickly find out what apostolic, jurisdiction, and visible mean in the eyes of the Church. I'm not going to go to a list of theologians and string out a set of quotes for each of these terms. I should think the Catholic Encyclopedia would be an adequate place for a reasonable definition. I contend that the sede movement, as you indicated in your post above, has 'developed' over the years. I, also, contend that it has done so in a pattern that is, to say the least, dangerous.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:46 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 2:17 pm
Posts: 13
New post 
John Daly wrote:
Hudson,

Commenting on my words

Quote:
As I read the reminder of your post it seems to me that we are broadly in agreement on this distinction


you reply

Quote:
Almost. The issue of whether Benedict XVI is the pope or not ties into dogma. It's not just about whether he is Catholic or not, but also whether the people in question accept his heresies by way of omission.


Right, now I see what you're getting at and we are very decidedly not in agreement, I'm afraid. And the reason seems to me that you are not following what Catholic authorities teach about how to identify heresy and schism. I'll intersperse a few comments or questions.


Well, I do have a reply, so we'll see if this helps any. I'll will insert comments/questions in between as necessary for consistency and to maintain readability.

John Daly wrote:
Quote:
This means in some cases (at least), one must denounce Benedict XVI as an apostate and label him as antipope, in order to not violate Canon 1325.1, which states that the faithful must "profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor."

JSD: Your application of Canon 1325 to the status of Benedict XVI seems to me to be abusive because his non-papal status is not an object of faith. Yes, let me repeat that, it is not an object of faith. Certainly we may reach certainty that he is not pope by applying reason to known facts in the light of what faith teaches, but our conclusions formed in this way are not acts of faith. We have faith in what God has revealed. God has not revealed that Benedict is not pope. We also use the expression "ecclesiastical faith" for truths not directly revealed but which the Church directly teaches us. But the Church does not directly teach us that Benedict is not pope. The distinction between what the Church teaches and the application made by fallible mortals like us of that teaching to concrete situations is clear and there must be no confusing the two things.


If you're saying his non-papal status is not a Catholic dogma, that's fine. I never said it was a dogma. But I did say it ties into Catholic dogma, i.e. there is a related dogma which is connected to the status of Benedict XVI, so that if one were to say that he is the pope, such a person ends up denying the related dogma.

The Catholic Church has always taught infallibly that heretics and schismatics are not in the Church (therefore they are not Catholic), and that heresy and schism result in automatic excommunication. To say Benedict XVI is a true pope, while acknowledging that he teaches heresy, is to deny the dogma that states that heretics and schismatics are not a part of the Catholic Church.

This is basically what I was conveying to people earlier.

Now, in reference to my quote from the Second Council of Nicea, we have:

John Daly wrote:
Er, you're going a bit fast for me there, Hudson. Is Benedict's status mentioned in the Psalms somewhere? I grant that a bishop who has fully respected his duties of thorough knowledge of theology and Canon Law should be able to spot that Vatican II and the new religion emerging from it are not Catholic and should reject them, but you are going a lot further than that and a lot further than you have proved.


All right, I'll try to slow down somewhat. :D I did quote from the Council primarily to illustrate the principle that bishops have obligation to know the Catholic faith, just in case there were some who were not aware of this fact.

John Daly wrote:
Quote:
Bishop Lefebvre, for instance, could identify heresy in Vatican II, he could identify the heresies of Paul VI and John Paul II (as an example). However, he has failed to come to proper conclusions on the status of both of them and openly denounce both as apostates and antipopes. He has, to my knowledge, always referred to them as Catholics and as popes. Such acts are evidence of heresy (actually apostasy) by way of omission, and evidence of schism.

Once again, Hudson, you're going so fast you don't seem conscious of how many steps you're completely missing out. Granted that Archbishop Lefebvre should have spotted the heresies of Paul VI and John-Paul II, for instance. In some cases he did. But what if he doubted whether they were pertinacious in the full sense of that term? Is that doubt a heresy? Or what about if he followed the opinion of Cajetan, Suarez, Journet, Bouix and other respectable theologians that a heretical pope does not lose his office automatically? Is that too a heresy?


As to pertinacity, we have this:

Canon 1325.2
Quote:
One who after baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously {obstinately} denies or doubts any one of the truths which must be believed de fide divina et catholica, is a heretic.


Canon 2200
Quote:
The evil will (dolus), spoken of in Canon 2199, means a deliberate will to violate a law and presupposes on the part of the mind a knowledge of the law and on the part of the will freedom of action. Given the external violation of a law, the evil will is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved.


Paul VI taught many heresies in public, as did John Paul II and Benedict XVI, both before and after their "elections" to the papacy. Would you say that each heresy John Paul II taught in public, for example, was not pertinacious? He committed at least one heresy several times, one in particular involving the endorsement of non-Catholic religions and sects. Considering especially that the heresy is coming from someone who claims to be the pope, the holder of the highest office in the Church, how much leeway can be given? This is why we have Canon 2200, after all the heresy is in front of the observers. If someone is truly not guilty of heresy, the facts to prove that can be easily established. To date, I have not seen or heard anything convincing which would excuse Paul VI, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI (who is not a bishop anyway) from whatever heresies they have taught - at least nothing which would not also result in someone deny other Catholic dogmas in the process.

The reason things are the way they are is for the common good. I'll explain this later.

John Daly wrote:
Certainly he failed to come to proper conclusions about them. Given the duty of all Catholics not to accuse others of very grave sins without necessity, common sense suggests to me the explanation that he was not as well trained in theology as he should have been and did not reflect as carefully as he ought to have and was weakly hesitant in drawing terrifying conclusions. Charity would observe that he was probably afraid of falling into heresy by ending up with a Church lacking in visibility or by apparently denying the perpetuity of the papacy. I know there are answers to these points. But let us not forget that the crisis is also a frightening mystery - the mystery of iniquity. Let us not forget that we shall be judged as harshly as we have judged our neighbour. Archbishop Lefebvre is our neighbour.


I can understand the importance of not making rash accusations.

However, some things also need to be considered. Yes, there is always a visible Church, and there will always be perpetual successors of St. Peter. But let's not forget the Catholic Church is indefectible - Our Lord said the gates of hell ( ==heretics ) will not prevail against the Church. There is also one faith in the Catholic Church.

One can with these teachings, in addition to the one about heretics and schismatics being excluded from the Church, can actually put together a defense of sedevacantism, without even quoting Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.

John, I'm sure you aware of an interesting July 1986 Angelus article where sedevacantism is considered, the article was in response to a few instances of John Paul II's participation in non-Catholic services. I thought about the following as I was reading it again:

John Daly wrote:
I note also that you refer several times to "heresy by way of omission". It is true that there are cases in which the omission of a certain act unequivocally manifests heresy. But the failure to denounce a heretic who apparently occupies the see of Peter and subtly veils his heresies is not one recognised by any theologian I have studied on this point. The reason is that so many other factors could account for it. And in any event, Archbishop Lefebvre did denounce Paul VI and John-Paul II and vigorously condemn their heresies. He failed to see that they were definitely not popes. By the way, have you not observed that your accusation of heresy and schism against those bishops who remain in communion with a heretical usurper of the Holy See is opposed to Cum Ex Apostolatus?


I should look at veiled heresies when I have time and see what I can find. For right now, though, I'll concentrate on heresies and schismatic teachings which have been publicized or propagated in some way. This is the type of situation where a person's approval of non-Catholic teachings and practices can not possibly be hidden or ignored (especially those which the press has made known to the readership). The Angelus article was the instance that was the closest, as far as I know, he ever was to saying that they were definitely not popes (but unfortunately did not actually say it).

How is my assertion opposed to Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio? Being in communion with a heretical usurper of the Apostolic See results in the denial of the dogma that heretics and schismatics are not in the Catholic Church, as I said earlier. That also reminds me of another issue. If some of these bishops in communion with a heretical usurper profess belief in some other heresy, they too are not Catholic and I couldn't be in communion with them anyway. So, we have those who have openly gone over to the novus ordo sect, which means those bishops have accepted the teachings of Vatican II, along with the false teachings of that sect's leaders. Then you have other bishops, such as the four in the SSPX, who would treat Vatican II as a Catholic council, yet question its teachings - effectively denying papal infallibility:

Quote:
And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is lead by a prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect.

It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church? For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly. It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith. . .

(The Allocution of Pope Paul VI to the Consistory of Cardinals; May 24, 1976)


Those are the only two groups of bishops that I know of who would be in communion with Benedict XVI. Please let me know if I'm missing something.

John Daly wrote:
JSD. There is nothing to discuss until you produce some serious authorities, Hudson. If a layman is asked a question about Catholic dogma to which he doesn't know the answer he is not "bound to go and seek the answer" unless there is some special motive for doing so that you have not mentioned. He is bound to go and carry out the duties of his state of life.


I will address this later. I'm not sure now if I began to go off-topic by bringing it up.

John Daly wrote:
Quote:
So, for some people at least, it's not a matter of whether they have realized, but rather whether they should have realized.

JSD: Yes, Hudson, but that "whether they should have realised" is a judgment of the internal forum that belongs only to God. It has nothing to do with the conditions for membership of the Catholic Church. One ceases to be a Catholic by refusing dogmas one is evidently aware of. Erring about dogmas one is culpably unaware of is sinful but the name of that sin is not heresy and it does not exclude one from the Church. That is what Catholic theologians teach on this subject.


Would this apply for prelates, especially those who teach heresy in public?

John Daly wrote:
Here is one example: “Should anyone commit these sins [apostasy, heresy, schism] as a result of ignorance which is even gravely culpable...he is free from the delict[of heresy], which requires pertinacity.”

{. . . .}

And here's another: St Alphonsus Liguori: “No one is a heretic as long as he is disposed to submit his judgment to the Church, or does not know that the Church of Christ holds the contrary, even if he defends his opinion doggedly through culpable or even crass ignorance.” (Theol. Moral. lib. 3, n. 19)


If a prelate is obligated to know the Catholic faith, how can ignorance excuse him from heresy?

And Canon Law presumes malice/obstinacy until a legitimate excuse can be given, and this for the common good. The reason is that an uncorrected and unpunished offender, by his teaching heresy unchecked, can harm the reputation of the Church, cause scandal, and encourage others to do the same. This especially important when we're speaking of someone with a high office in the Church.

I recognize the quotes, but I also realize how to react to heresy is dependent on the person committing it as well as the circumstances surrounding the incident.

John Daly wrote:
I know how exasperating it is to see so many men failing to reach the conclusion that the See is vacant - a conclusion that to us is so evident and flows so clearly from the application of sound theology to the facts. But let us not allow our exasperation to provoke us into the habit of severe judgment of our neighbour's faults and weaknesses or, worse still, of cheerfully "booting out of the Church" all those we think don't deserve to be in it. We should be very far from the example of the saints and very far from the teaching of the theologians if we acted in such a way.


Rest assured, emotion does not play a role in what I've said here. It's only a matter of sticking to the Magisterial teachings and Canon Law. Of course, if there is anything I've left out or something which needs to be clarified or corrected, I would be willing to hear about it.


Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:41 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Hudson Jackson II wrote:
This is basically what I was conveying to people earlier.


Dear Hudson,

I'll leave your errors to Mr. Daly to refute, but this comment of yours struck me as significant. It appears you are here to teach. You have misunderstood the purpose of the Bellarmine Forums. They exist to discuss the crisis on the basis of sound sources. They are not a captive audience of sedevacantists to whom you or anybody else may freely propose your theories. This is where one or two others have had difficulty also. Please remember that you are an untrained layman like the rest of us and that therefore you may be wrong about all manner of things that seem incredibly clear to you, and you will consequently need to express yourself with diffidence and care on one point at a time, in a spirit not of teaching everybody else, but of politely discussing these things.

Now, there is another even more important point to make. An example will illustrate it.

Hudson Jackson II wrote:
As to pertinacity, we have this:

Canon 1325.2
Quote:
One who after baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously {obstinately} denies or doubts any one of the truths which must be believed de fide divina et catholica, is a heretic.


Canon 2200
Quote:
The evil will (dolus), spoken of in Canon 2199, means a deliberate will to violate a law and presupposes on the part of the mind a knowledge of the law and on the part of the will freedom of action. Given the external violation of a law, the evil will is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved.


Mr. Daly will easily refute this claim, so I won't bother saying anything about it except that it is quite wrong and destructive of all true jurisprudence in relation to heresy or schism. The point I wished to highlight was that you could not have erred on this (or at least, error would have been exceedingly unlikely) if you had researched this question in a proper source. And for us, those are the sources which accurately record the proximate rule of Faith - that is, the preaching of the Church. Our first step is the catechism, which is silent on this rather technical point of law, so we move on to the Manuals. That is, canon law commentaries, moralists, dogmatic theologians. You cite or quote almost none of these. Your sources are instead essentially primary sources which are the subjects of interpretation and explanation by the manualists. The Code, the Councils, etc.

Now, if you continue down that path you won't be able to enjoy the discussion here, because you will not be adding to anything, but only confusing it. Almost the entire problem with the Internet can be summed up in the statement that people may do their own theology and law and then publish it irresponsibly. We have no intention of adding to the problem here.

So, please tell us which manuals (law, morals, dogma) you have access to, and if none, where you got your ideas. If you really got them from the primary sources you cite, then you will need to start again from scratch I'm afraid. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Perhaps the sting may be taken from it a little if I tell you that I have been guilty of the same mistake on numerous occasions and will have to publish a list of retractions at some point as a result. I don't believe any of them affected my essential position, but they were all a result of reading primary sources and not the correct secondary ones.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Hudson Jackson II wrote:
This is basically what I was conveying to people earlier.

I'll leave your errors to Mr. Daly to refute, but this comment of yours struck me as significant. It appears you are here to teach. You have misunderstood the purpose of the Bellarmine Forums.


convey: "to transmit; to communicate or make known" - from http://www.dictionary.com

How is this comment of HJII's significant? Are we not all here to convey the things we write? I am not saying he is guiltless of the offense imputed to him, but the quoted words do not make the case that he is, in fact, guilty.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:40 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
How is this comment of HJII's significant? Are we not all here to convey the things we write? I am not saying he is guiltless of the offense imputed to him, but the quoted words do not make the case that he is, in fact, guilty.


Oh, wouldn't have called it an "offence" (or even an "offense") :) and nor would I speak of him as "guilty" or otherwise. But the mentality is completely clear, and you for one certainly understand it because you too think you have important doctrines to teach others.

My hope is that we can move on to a more mature and relaxed discussion in which I don't have to offer as much guidance about how these things are done.

Do you accept the rest of my post, regarding the correct sources, Eamon?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 04, 2006 3:05 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post Re: Late reply to Eamon Shea
Eamon Shea wrote:
John Daly wrote:
I do not agree that in offering the Mass the laity are obliged by any necessity, moral or physical, to associate themselves with every accidental aspect of the priest’s offering.


Eamon wrote:
A) This is not, imo, some "accidental" aspect

B) The Te igitur is, in fact, a public prayer that is part of the very heart of the Mass, the Canon

C) Although you initially asked me to prove that we are joined to the priest in his profession of communion, etc, it would seem the burden for proof lies with those who argue that it is possible to actively participate by way of assistance at a public Mass, as a co-offerer, and yet somehow refrain from being united in one particular part - while remaining present and being silent, as silence would seem to indicate consent (and the contrary would need to be proved, imo). I believe that the layman in the pew simply cannot help associating himself with the priest, given that he is actively assisting the priest. If he 'disassociates' himself, it would have to be proven that such is acceptable, or even possible (while remaining present and silent).


John Daly wrote:
Eamon, just as it is possible to go to Mass without consenting to every word the priest says, so it is possible to recommend a book without agreeing with every word in it.


John,

Although the above is from a previous post, I just wanted to add the following quote from Bossuet - and I thought it better to do so in this manner versus simply adding it to the other post by way of edit.

In Meditations on the Gospel, Last Supper, Pt. I, 83rd day, he says this about Holy Mass:

"We all make this offering together with the priest, our consent is given to all that he does, all that he says. And what is it that he says?..."

Dom Chautard has this to say (pp225-226, The Soul of the Apostolate):

"The Divine Office and Holy Mass, which is the most important part of the Liturgy, cannot be celebrated without the whole Church being involved, and being mysteriously present. And so, in the Liturgy, everything is done in common in the name of all, for the benefit of all. All the prayers are said in the plural." (Chautard's emphasis).

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:11 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
...But the mentality is completely clear...


While this is a response, it is not an answer to my question, which was (essentially):

How do the "significant" words you quoted reveal HJII's intention to teach? I thank you in advance for an answer.

Quote:
...and you for one certainly understand it because you too think you have important doctrines to teach others.


This is a personal remark (where one has neither been provoked nor called for), which also happens to be offered with nothing to substantiate it. However, as the matter is completely off-topic, it would probably be best to just leave it alone for now.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:59 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
John Lane wrote:
...But the mentality is completely clear...


While this is a response, it is not an answer to my question, which was (essentially):

How do the "significant" words you quoted reveal HJII's intention to teach? I thank you in advance for an answer.


They don't, in themselves, demonstrate much of anything. But I have been around, and his words struck me, in the context, as significant. Maybe this will assist you:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicact/message/5388
Or this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicact/message/5232

You will note that he speaks about "the salvation dogma" and asserts, contrary to the dogmatic definition of Trent, that nobody can be justified without baptism with water. With RobertS and others of similar mind, he is a "sedevacantist Feeneyite."

More importantly, however, I would ask you to read the rest of what I wrote to him, because those were the more important points, dealing with the rule of Faith, proximate and remote, and our own role etc.

Eamon Shea wrote:
Quote:
...and you for one certainly understand it because you too think you have important doctrines to teach others.


This is a personal remark (where one has neither been provoked nor called for), which also happens to be offered with nothing to substantiate it. However, as the matter is completely off-topic, it would probably be best to just leave it alone for now.


Well, you're not leaving it alone, but rather highlighting it. But if you've finished highlighting it now I'm happy to leave it behind too. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post 
John Daly wrote:
Quote:
The Church herself has not pronounced on Benedict.


Where is the Church? In Rome? In the Bishops? Cardinals? In Us? It seems you/we have discounted the NO Bishops, Cardinals and laity. Where then is it? The SV position becomes untenable. Rightly did Jesus ask “Think ye that the when the Son of man returns He will find faith on earth?”

So then with Jesus, Fr Ratzinger asks, one asks…”Who do you say that I am?”

John Daly also wrote:
Quote:
But the failure to denounce a heretic who apparently occupies the see of Peter and subtly veils his heresies is not one recognised by any theologian I have studied on this point.


Does this include all modern day SV and non-SV theologians?

What a pickle we are in!!!


Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:50 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
They don't, in themselves, demonstrate much of anything.


Now that is an answer. Thank you.

Quote:
But if you've finished highlighting it now I'm happy to leave it behind too.


Having been highlighted, I thought it best to leave it at that. Now, perhaps I could get an answer to the recent posts about consent, etc. I realize they are addressed to Mr. Daly, who is likely very busy, but his email address is not accessible through his profile (nor are several of the moderators' addresses - which is kind of a problem with the PM feature inoperable). Any help in procuring an aswer is appreciated.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:14 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
Then perhaps I could get a response to the recent posts about consent, etc. I realize they are addressed to Mr. Daly, who is likely very busy, but his email address is not accessible through his profile (nor are several of the moderators' addresses - which is kind of a problem with the PM feature inoperable). Any help in procuring an aswer is appreciated.


Dear Eamon,

The PM feature was turned on a few weeks ago at various person's request. My only comment at the time was that I ask that people do not use it to write to me. I'm already having sufficient trouble answering my email.

Mr. Daly is extremely busy and I will be surprised if we see much from him for a few weeks. But I would also be surprised - mildly, anyway - if he responded to your last few posts, which added nothing whatsoever to the arguments already made. All are agreed that we offer the Mass with the priest, and consent to all that he does, as a rule. But it has already been explained to you how a conflict of intentions is resolved, and other relevant principles. If you don't accept those points you won't accept any distinctions introduced to explain why we are not bound by absolutely everything the priest says or thinks.

This is no different from a situation in which somebody quotes Our Lord to the effect that unless we receive His Body and Blood we cannot have supernatural life, and another responds that this is not true always and in every case, but only relatively, for it is de fide that we receive supernatural life through baptism, prior to receiving the Holy Eucharist. Such a debate could go back and forth all day, but unless the fundamental principles are agreed, it is nothing more than a waste of time. This is exactly the case with this weird "una cum" argument, which could only have germinated in the impoverished soil of the Cassiciacum philosophy, in which a pure abstraction ("papa materialiter") becomes the basis of a real transmission of Apostolicity. With such thinking there can be no worthwhile argument, for it is at best a kind of inverted Nominalism.

Yes, I know good and sound men have "bought" the conclusion. Yes, they are of good will and I hope that God rewards their zeal. I'm sure that your passion for this separation from your fellow Catholics in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is well-meaning, and untainted by any schismatic intentions, Eamon, but I am equally convinced that the position is erroneous, and being erroneous, it is dangerous and leads to schism. And if we could move on from this fixation that some sedevacantists have with this one point, we could spend our time doing some useful intellectual work on the sede vacante thesis, for there is a very great deal of work which needs doing.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:50 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
The PM feature was turned on a few weeks ago at various person's request. My only comment at the time was that I ask that people do not use it to write to me. I'm already having sufficient trouble answering my email.


Thank you for the update, John. Such news, it seems, takes a while to reach my little corner of the world.

Quote:
If you don't accept those points you won't accept any distinctions introduced to explain why we are not bound by absolutely everything the priest says or thinks.


I am not saying anyone is "bound" by it, but that he consents to it - particularly as he remains present (all the while assisting the priest in what he is doing) and makes no external indication to the contrary. It is this consent that Mr. Daly asked me to prove. I have since said that I think it is his duty to prove the opposite position - i.e., that one can be present, actively participating (and assisting), making no objection (verbal or otherwise), and yet somehow remain separated from what is happening at the altar in what we have agreed is a public prayer expressing communion in the highest form possible. I tend to think that if my posts added nothing to the discussion, it would have been pointed out immediately. The weeks of slience tend to give the opposite impression, whether this impression be right or wrong.

Quote:
This is exactly the case with this weird "una cum" argument, which could only have germinated in the impoverished soil of the Cassiciacum philosophy, in which a pure abstraction ("papa materialiter") becomes the basis of a real transmission of Apostolicity. With such thinking there can be no worthwhile argument, for it is at best a kind of inverted Nominalism.


This connection between the una cum issue and Guerardianism does not seem to be as tight knit as you have frequently made it out to be. I know quite a few sede-vacantists who are non-una cum, as well as Guerardians who are una cum. There may be more non-una cum Guerardians than not, but these ideas do not seem to be as inextricably linked as you have often posited.

Quote:
I'm sure that your passion for this separation from your fellow Catholics in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is well-meaning, and untainted by any schismatic intentions, Eamon, but I am equally convinced that the position is erroneous, and being erroneous, it is dangerous and leads to schism.


Previously you had, perhaps unwittingly, attributed to me (and others by extension) the rather nefarious motive of trying to keep people away from Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. It is not about that, nor has it ever been, and I am glad to see you may realize that. However, neither it is about "passion for separation from my fellow Catholics" - and to posit this idea (as a motive) is, again, quite absurd.

Can you clarify when it leads to - and arrives at - schism? Do you see all non-una cum advocates as schismatics?

Quote:
And if we could move on from this fixation that some sedevacantists have with this one point, we could spend our time doing some useful intellectual work on the sede vacante thesis, for there is a very great deal of work which needs doing.


It is hard not to appear "fixated" on this one issue (at least where your forum is concerned), when this is the only thread in which I can post.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:46 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dear Eamon,

Eamon Shea wrote:
I tend to think that if my posts added nothing to the discussion, it would have been pointed out immediately. The weeks of slience tend to give the opposite impression, whether this impression be right or wrong.


Quite wrong. If anything, I would have thought granting you the last word would have spoken for our confidence in our position. But it doesn’t matter. If Mr. Daly cares and has time, you’ll get a further response.

Eamon Shea wrote:
This connection between the una cum issue and Guerardianism does not seem to be as tight knit as you have frequently made it out to be. I know quite a few sede-vacantists who are non-una cum, as well as Guerardians who are una cum. There may be more non-una cum Guerardians than not, but these ideas do not seem to be as inextricably linked as you have often posited.


Yes, well you’re merely missing the point, which is not how “linked” these things are, but simply that Guerard des Laurier invented the anti-una-cum position and until a few years ago only Guerardians promoted it.

Eamon Shea wrote:
Previously you had, perhaps unwittingly, attributed to me (and others by extension) the rather nefarious motive of trying to keep people away from Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.


I don’t know how one “unwittingly attributes” something to another, but I assure you that I believe that you are trying to separate numerous Catholics from access to the sacraments, including the Blessed Sacrament, and I am also quite sure you are doing this for what you believe to be the purest motives.

I am also completely convinced that if you had a sufficiently developed sense of responsibility you would reflect on the situation and realise that the safer position is to remain silent, rather than promote something which was not only unknown to all Catholics prior to its invention in the late ‘seventies by Guerard des Laurier, but even today is opposed by manifestly erudite and pious Catholics (and the vast bulk of the sedevacantist clergy). We may well be wrong, and we will have to answer for our actions in continuing to do what all Catholics did for decades after V2; but if you succeed in separating others from the sacraments, and you are incorrect in your position, what possible defence could you make to the charge that you acted with the crassest irresponsibility? You cannot claim to be merely following others, for if that were the case, you would remain home alone yourself in silence. No, you are promoting the position to others.

Eamon Shea wrote:
However, neither it is about "passion for separation from my fellow Catholics" - and to posit this idea (as a motive) is, again, quite absurd.


Ah, but it is, and we are not speaking about motives so much as plain facts. You are pushing the Bishop Sanborn line that communication in sacris with Catholics, in a non-Catholic Mass (offered by a Catholic – work that out if you can), is wrong. The fact that the entire history of the law regarding communication in sacris concerns worship in common with NON-Catholics seems not to matter. Nor does it matter that you have no single authority who holds that communication in sacris with Catholics is wrong.

Eamon Shea wrote:
Can you clarify when it leads to - and arrives at - schism? Do you see all non-una cum advocates as schismatics?


No, obviously not, and I don’t believe I have described any promoter of this strange, unCatholic, theory as a schismatic.

Eamon Shea wrote:
It is hard not to appear "fixated" on this one issue (at least where your forum is concerned), when this is the only thread in which I can post.


You don’t need to post here – you have an entire message board of your own which you can post whatever you like on, and I recently permitted somebody to promote it and provide a link to it.

But my comment is perfectly just, I think.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
John you said:

Quote:
...Guerard des Lauriers invented the anti-una-cum position and until a few years ago only Guerardians promoted it.


What do you count as a few years? Father Baker said he never understood why anyone held the GL theory but he held the anti-una-cum position for many years. So your statement is untrue unless you count a few years as over 20.

Pia


Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:43 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
John you said:

Quote:
...Guerard des Lauriers invented the anti-una-cum position and until a few years ago only Guerardians promoted it.


What do you count as a few years? Father Baker said he never understood why anyone held the GL theory but he held the anti-una-cum position for many years. So your statement is untrue unless you count a few years as over 20.

Pia


Dear Pia,

I think there has been some confusion and I hope this will be the opportunity finally to clear it up.

We are all against the priest putting the heretic’s name in the Canon and calling him “pope.” We all agree that the priest should not do this and we lament the fact that he does. But Bp. Guerard went further. He said that if a priest does this, even though we are completely sure of his good Faith and that he is still a Catholic, we must not assist at such a Mass, because the heretic is named in the Canon.

Fr. Baker disagreed with that position, even though he may have counselled some people against assisting at SSPX Masses for other reasons, perhaps because of doubts about Archbishop Lefebvre’s orders, or because he worried about a particular priest’s orthodoxy, or whatever.

I hope this helps.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:39 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
John,

Quote:
Fr Baker disagreed with that position, even though he may have counselled some people against assisting at SSPX Masses for other reasons, perhaps because of doubts about Archbishop Lefebvre's orders, or because he worried about a particular priest's orthodoxy, or whatever.


Yes let us clear this up once and for all. You have quoted Father Baker as saying that it is in order for people to attend SSPX Masses if they are without any other means of receiving the Sacraments. You have stated that he wrote this in a parish bulletin in October 1983. I have all Father Baker's handwritten bulletins and this particular quote is not in any of the October 1983 copies. (I am awaiting site of a copy and hope you will be able to supply one) Though I am assuming that there is a mistake in the date somewhere.

However even assuming he did say this:

1. It is quite clear that he meant ONLY if you had no other recourse to the Sacraments.

2. In the 20 odd years after this 'statement' his position developed to become absolutely certain that it was not permissable to assist at an SSPX Mass. Your assertion that he only told some people this because of some other reason has no basis in fact or certainty. What is certain is that he told several people that it was not ok and others he left in good faith. This, he stated quite clearly, was a pastoral decision. Several of his later bulletins testify to his position as do those of us who were with him until he died. When agreeing to have an SSPX priest bury him at the insistance of one of his carers he would only do so if the priest concerned would say a non-una-cum Mass. In fact until very near his end he refused to see any SSPX priests and only agreed at the end because the priest was the son of a deceased good friend.

Why would Father Baker refuse his altar to an SSPX priest if he thought there was no harm in him offering an una-cum Mass? Would any fellow priest be so uncharitable if they did not think it was gravely wrong and something to be avoided at all costs?

I think it is most definitely a scandal that anyone assist at a Mass where a priest inserts the name of Benedict XVI as pope of the One, Holy and Apostolic Church and I do not find either your arguments and examples (or Mr Daly's) in any way convincing justification. Indeed I think it most definitely comes under 'giving the appearance of evil' by condoning something which by your own admission is gravely sinful. The presence of anyone who professes the sedevacante position gives other souls who may be unaware of the gravity of this to think 'If so and so thinks it is ok then it must be' which eventually leads to 'why do we need to go to a non-una-cum Mass at all'.

If those of us in England thought it was in any way permissable to attend an SSPX Mass I do not think we would be paying out the amounts we do in order to have a sedevacante priest say Mass for us. Neither would Father Baker have worried so much about the souls he was leaving as he most certainly did.

I, and I believe other of his parishioners, resent your attempts to use Father Baker to justify your claim.

You have supposedly quoted Father Baker without even telling him that you had done so and without giving him the opportunity to either confirm or correct what you have posted. At the very least I believe this to be ill-conceived.

Pia


Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:20 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dear Pia,

Much misunderstanding remains, apparently.


Pia wrote:
1. It is quite clear that he meant ONLY if you had no other recourse to the Sacraments.

Nobody has argued about that here, as far as I recall.


Pia wrote:
2. In the 20 odd years after this 'statement' his position developed to become absolutely certain that it was not permissable to assist at an SSPX Mass.

But he never published such an opinion, so we have only your word for it, and whilst I have no doubts about your honesty, I have serious doubts about your clarity on this subject, I’m afraid.


Pia wrote:
Your assertion that he only told some people this because of some other reason has no basis in fact or certainty.

Let’s be clear about what I wrote.
John Lane wrote:
Fr. Baker disagreed with that position, even though he may have counselled some people against assisting at SSPX Masses for other reasons, perhaps because of doubts about Archbishop Lefebvre’s orders, or because he worried about a particular priest’s orthodoxy, or whatever.

Your presentation of my words was at best ambiguous. I am denying that Fr. Baker held the Guerardian view. You are saying that he held that Catholics may not assist at SSPX Masses. The two positions are not even necessarily in conflict. If you think that Fr. Baker held that one may not assist at a Mass in which a heretic is named as pope, then the onus of proof is on you. And that onus would be on you even if he had never published his earlier position statement to the contrary, because the position was entirely unheard of prior to Bishop Guerard des Lauriers inventing it out of whole cloth in the late 1970s.


Pia wrote:
What is certain is that he told several people that it was not ok and others he left in good faith. This, he stated quite clearly, was a pastoral decision.

But he didn’t publish his (new) position? He published his old one, and never retracted it, and did not publish his new one. That is your understanding of the course of events, Pia?


Pia wrote:
Several of his later bulletins testify to his position as do those of us who were with him until he died.

Please quote them.


Pia wrote:
When agreeing to have an SSPX priest bury him at the insistance of one of his carers he would only do so if the priest concerned would say a non-una-cum Mass.

This means nothing at all in relation to the question at issue, because he had already in 1983 written, “I do of course refuse the use of my altar to any priest who puts John Paul’s name in the canon, but this is surely not inconsistent. My altar and oratory are private property, the priest is not in dire need and suffers no deprivation, there are other altars available (there is a John Paul II church next door), and I must do what I can to impress on a priest the error of his ways.” And that statement was immediately after the one in which he said that we may assist at Masses in which JP2 is named as pope.


Pia wrote:
In fact until very near his end he refused to see any SSPX priests and only agreed at the end because the priest was the son of a deceased good friend.

Yes, Fr. Paul Morgan, son of Mr. Bill Morgan, the great sedevacantist friend of Archbishop Lefebvre and of the SSPX, whose position was as far as I know exactly the same as mine, and in fact Bill Morgan gave me the right to re-publish his newsletters on the Web. None of this is relevant to the question at issue, of course, except that Fr. Baker was friends with a chap who held my views exactly. :)


Pia wrote:
Why would Father Baker refuse his altar to an SSPX priest if he thought there was no harm in him offering an una-cum Mass? Would any fellow priest be so uncharitable if they did not think it was gravely wrong and something to be avoided at all costs?

Read his own words. You are apparently not able to distinguish between saying JP2’s name and being present whilst somebody else pronounces it. But Fr. Baker could and did distinguish between the two cases.


Pia wrote:
I think it is most definitely a scandal that anyone assist at a Mass where a priest inserts the name of Benedict XVI as pope of the One, Holy and Apostolic Church and I do not find either your arguments and examples (or Mr Daly's) in any way convincing justification.

And nobody is criticising you for your opinion, Pia. The only thing you are under any pressure about is your desire to inflict your unfounded feelings on others as though they were the law of the Church. There is no law. That is why Fr. Baker did not cite one, and did not publish the opinion you think he held.


Pia wrote:
Indeed I think it most definitely comes under 'giving the appearance of evil' by condoning something which by your own admission is gravely sinful. The presence of anyone who professes the sedevacante position gives other souls who may be unaware of the gravity of this to think 'If so and so thinks it is ok then it must be' which eventually leads to 'why do we need to go to a non-una-cum Mass at all'.

Indeed. Tell me, which is the more grave matter? 1. To assist at a Mass in which Ratzinger is named as pope in the Canon. 2. To breach charity and peace with fellow Catholics over matters not yet decided by Holy Mother Church.

I will give you some direction on this. The second point has been hammered in season and out of season by Our Lord, St. Paul, numerous Fathers of the Church, countless theologians and saints, and has been made the subject of large chunks of several encyclicals by modern popes (e.g. Leo XIII, Pius X, etc.) Some examples are provided here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... c.php?t=10


Pia wrote:
If those of us in England thought it was in any way permissable to attend an SSPX Mass I do not think we would be paying out the amounts we do in order to have a sedevacante priest say Mass for us.

I understand that you have your views. You are entitled to them, and to pay large sums to live in accord with them. I have no criticism of you whatsoever for that. But I have a different judgement. That is all.

You might also keep in mind that contrary to the situation many individuals are in, I do not have the liberty of taking the harder road without complete certitude that it is obligatory, because I have seven other souls who need the sacraments (and two more under the age of reason), and I have no right to deprive them without that certitude.


Pia wrote:
I, and I believe other of his parishioners, resent your attempts to use Father Baker to justify your claim.

You have supposedly quoted Father Baker without even telling him that you had done so and without giving him the opportunity to either confirm or correct what you have posted. At the very least I believe this to be ill-conceived.

With respect, my lady, this is merely funny. :)

Fr. Baker published some advice. I have quoted his published material. I was assured by somebody who was in touch with Fr. Baker – that is, Mr. John Daly – that Fr. Baker retained the same view, so there was certainly no problem re-publishing it. So you have the facts wrong.

But you resent my use of his words to “justify” my claim? Where do you think I got my “claim” Pia? I will tell you. I got it from Fr. Baker, Fr. Collins, Fr. Zapp, Fr. Berry, Fr. Ahern, Fr. Cekada, Bishop Dolan, Bishop McKenna (yes, the Guerardian Bishop McKenna), Bishop Pivarunas, and of course the likes of Bill Morgan. I happily assisted at Masses in which JP2 was named as pope for four or five years before I heard any hint of this new position, and then it was an article by a Guerardian, published by a Guerardian (Fr. Sanborn), and based on a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the “una cum” clause, which Fr. Sanborn later admitted. And it was almost another decade before the subject reared its head again. One would think from the way in which its promoters speak, that I was being cheeky holding my position and claiming support for it from traditionalist authorities. Those authorities gave it to me. If and when they change their views (almost none of them have) the onus is on them to retract and justify their new stance. I have the right to resent any other approach. But I don’t resent it. I enjoy the humour.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:38 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Ah John!

I am so glad that you are able to find some humour in my posts. I certainly find some in yours! :lol:

However Iam sorry :cry: that you do not have certitude. I too have young souls to care for and, thanks to Fr Baker, they have certitude by the bucketload. As Our Lord said "My Father, I bless you because you have revealed to the little ones what is hidden from the wise and the prudent".

I am also glad that I have had the chance to state what Father Baker's position was regarding attendance at SSPX Masses. Most especially his position in the last 20 years of his life.

I think your 'evidence' of an 'article' (which you haven't yet provided a copy of) is very weak. Especially as said 'article' quite clearly shows that Fr Baker thought it was only permissable to attend an SSPX Mass if you had no other recourse. I am very grateful to Our Lord that I do have recourse. If you do not, anytime or anywhere, then again I am very sorry for you and pray for you and yours.

Thank you for your mention of Charity with regard to 'fellow Catholics'. However I do not think Fr Baker ever offended in this and I do not believe I have - have you?

Mr Daly may have known Father Baker but so did I and for a lot longer. If anyone knows what Father Baker thought about attendance at an SSPX Mass it is me and my family and the parishioners that knew him for over 30 years who also disagree with your view of Father Baker's position. Compared Mr Daly hardly qualifies and I do not think you knew him at all.

If all those priests and bishops agree with you fine and I wish you all every success, but then no wonder St Luke said "Think you, when He comes again will He find Faith on earth?"

PS: I still think it is good manners to ask before you publish the work of a living person - in fact I think there may even be a law concerning it.

Pia


Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:23 am
Profile
New post 
Dear Souls and Pixels,

I can't help noticing that this might illustrate the preference for using our real names.

Other than that, I am laughing nervously at a joke I don't understand the humor of.

Eliz. + + +


Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:22 am

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:18 am
Posts: 19
New post 
Dear Pia,

These young souls in your care must get their certitude from you (about the non attendance at una-cum Masses) rather than Fr. Baker, because as you pointed out in the thread "Pope Sifting - Fr Cekada Sermon", Fr Baker's reply to this was very often: "Who am I to say?" There is nothing certain about that except his uncertainty.

That Fr Baker held that it was permissable to attend SSPX Masses is all that I understand Mr Lane to have ever been arguing. You are very fortunate to have recourse to a non una-cum Mass. Many people don't. The evidence to date is that Fr. Baker did not prevent those people who did not from attending SSPX Masses. You believe otherwise. Were you privy to all of Fr. Baker's discussions and thoughts on the matter to be confident enough to speak for him now, after his death, in the absence of anything published by him to support your view?

Well, Pia, to infer without proof that Mr Lane and all those bishops and priests who agree with him contribute to the lack of Faith Our Lord will find when He comes again is not the most charitable thing I have ever heard. Perhaps your first slip in that area.

Simplicius


Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:43 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post Fr Baker!
OK! OK Looks like some of us need to chill. In our 'passion' we can sometimes sound 'self-righteous' or throw unwanted 'zingers'. So enough about Fr. Baker already. While here on this thread we take him apart, et the poor man rest in peace for which we all pray. Let us preach Christ instead.

Peace.


Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:51 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
Ah John!

I am so glad that you are able to find some humour in my posts.


I really hope that this did not offend. I was trying very hard to keep from being offended myself, and I thought that seeing the funny side of it was the best policy. But if it was offensive I apologise.

Pia wrote:
Thank you for your mention of Charity with regard to 'fellow Catholics'. However I do not think Fr Baker ever offended in this and I do not believe I have - have you?


Alas, all too often. Every day, no doubt. Please pray for me.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:21 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Simplicius,

In the published words of ather Baker and without I hope offending in Charity:

"..do what is done at Downham Market and its Mass centres: Namely, simply put the facts, doctrinal, canonical, historical, to the people, that they may discern the truth for themselves. It must be admitted, however, that Downham Market-trained souls are so thoroughly instructed, fully informed, and firmly kept on the path to heaven, that they have a decided advantage over others in being able quickly and accurately to reach the correct conclusions." (July 1987)

Peace and Charitiable love to you all

Pia


Sun Aug 13, 2006 4:19 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
Simplicius,

In the published words of Father Baker and without I hope offending in Charity: ...


Not at all. Didn't he have the most delightful sense of humour? :D

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:39 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Eliz Carroll wrote:
Dear Souls and Pixels,


Thanks for the laugh, Eliz. How many souls can dance on the head of a pixel? :)

I've been away, and have just had a chance to check back in. This is all very frustrating for me. It seems we are dealing with one recently deceased person of some prominence, and many more still living which we can't come to any final decisions about their most simple positions on matters of great import.

I think we can agree that Bishop Sanborn, Bishop Dolan, and Father Cekada have a fairly strong "anti-una cum" position, and absent any evidence to the contrary, CMRI has a somewhat "liberal" position. We are all aware of Mr. Lane's posiiton, and we were getting a small taste of Mr. Daly's position. Over Father Baker's position, we see a rather strong disagreement, and some few other names have been entered that we have received no conclusive proof of dispositon.


Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:10 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
John, :D

Yes together with outstanding intelligence, utmost humility and overwhelming charity.

Pia


Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:14 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Geoffe,

:D I have never seen it spelt that way, your name that is, I like it. :D

What a mixed bunch we are. I do believe one of the sad facts in these troubled times is that although we have some thoroughly good, intelligent priests (and bishops) who know 'their stuff' to a certain extent, what is missing is the wonderful training and experience of the old priests like Father Baker. As he said speaking of Traditionalists: "The trouble is that we have on the one hand those who place too much emphasis on Charity at the expense of Truth and on the other those who place too much emphasis on Truth at the expense of Charity". Wise words.

Pia


Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:24 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Pia wrote:
Geoffe, I have never seen it spelt that way, your name that is :)


Well, you've managed to graft an extra "e" on there, but I'm able to live with almost anything. :)

I'm surprised if you haven't seen it that way, because as a one-of-a-kind American, I was always told that was the "English" way to spell it.


Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:23 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
:lol: It's even better with the 'e' :lol:

Here we have Jeff, Geff, Jeof, Geoff - but I do believe Geoffrey is the 'olde English' version.

Pia


Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:35 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
John, :D

Yes together with outstanding intelligence, utmost humility and overwhelming charity.

Pia


I know, I know. A wonderful man in every respect.

I'm glad you answered that comment, because for a while there I thought you took him to be speaking seriously when he made his joke, "It must be admitted, however, that Downham Market-trained souls are so thoroughly instructed, fully informed, and firmly kept on the path to heaven, that they have a decided advantage over others in being able quickly and accurately to reach the correct conclusions."

What a man! :D

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:54 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
John,

What makes you think he was joking.

Pia


Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:55 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
John,

What makes you think he was joking.

Pia


Dear Pia,

Are you pulling my leg?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:32 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John,

For all the time and energy you spent responding to my post (for which I thank you), you failed to address the central issue contained therein, namely:

"I am not saying anyone is "bound" by it, but that he consents to it - particularly as he remains present (all the while assisting the priest in what he is doing) and makes no external indication to the contrary. It is this consent that Mr. Daly asked me to prove. I have since said that I think it is his duty to prove the contrary - i.e., that one can be present, actively participating (and assisting), making no objection (verbal or otherwise), and yet somehow remain separated from what is happening at the altar in what we have agreed is a public prayer expressing communion in the highest form possible."

The fact that you have also recently admitted that those who assist at Mass give consent "as a rule", means you realize we are talking about an exception - and the burden to prove that this exception is allowable (or even possible) falls upon your camp, not mine. I do not say that it cannot be done, but that it has not been done thus far. Mr. Daly began by asking me to prove the contrary of the idea which it is, in reality, his duty to prove.

Quote:
No, obviously not, and I don’t believe I have described any promoter of this strange, unCatholic, theory as a schismatic.


Then how do you know it "leads to schism", when you here admit it has not arrived at schism in one single, verifiable case?

As for the remainder, I think I shall leave it for later. There is much to discuss, particularly in the way of what amount to mere psychological warfare tactics, imo, but such fun shall have to wait. It seems best to stay focussed on the one main issue at the beginning of this post (which is in blue type). Thank you for your time.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:55 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
I am not saying anyone is "bound" by it, but that he consents to it - particularly as he remains present (all the while assisting the priest in what he is doing) and makes no external indication to the contrary. It is this consent that Mr. Daly asked me to prove. I have since said that I think it is his duty to prove the contrary - i.e., that one can be present, actively participating (and assisting), making no objection (verbal or otherwise), and yet somehow remain separated from what is happening at the altar in what we have agreed is a public prayer expressing communion in the highest form possible."

The fact that you have also recently admitted that those who assist at Mass give consent "as a rule", means you realize we are talking about an exception - and the burden to prove that this exception is allowable (or even possible) falls upon your camp, not mine.


Yes, well this only adds to my conviction that there is no point discussing this with a partisan of your views. The burden of proof is spectacularly yours, and tricks of rhetoric won't shift it so as to justify your Guerardian oddity without further effort. Only a certain law obliges. You don't have any law at all. Ergo.

I did not intend by those words to assert that we are presumed to consent unless we object. I intended merely to agree that in normal times we assist at Mass offered by somebody who is not confused about whom his bishop and pope really are. As a rule, therefore, one would think that all who sit in the pews are in communion with whomever is named in the Canon.

But when we are in a situation in which the usual means by which these things are determined by Catholics are no longer operating, so that there is legitimate and understandable confusion over who the pope or bishop is, then that presumption no longer arises. Presumptions are based on reason. Without a reasonable basis they cannot be established.

Now, when you find a single historical example - the Great Western Schism should be a rich vein sitting there ready for you to plunder - of a saint or even a theologian of the meanest stripe who held your strange idea that we must avoid communicatio in sacris with fellow Catholics on these grounds, then please put it forward. In the mean time I shall continue to think that you have a fixed end point and variable means for getting there.

And for the record, I do not agree that the mention of the pope in the Te igitur can be described as "expressing communion in the highest form possible." It's not a particularly important point - but I dislike your continued mention of this as though I had agreed with it. Eamon, your sloppiness with these ideas only adds to my general view that you are wasting our time. And I don't understand your motive. As I asked you in private months ago, without any answer from you, will you be content if you manage to deprive my children of regular access to the sacraments, and most especially the Blessed Sacrament? And if so, why do you make this your aim? Did somebody appoint you to an office in the Church by which you are obliged to undertake this unpleasant exercise? Or are you merely confident in your novelty to the point that you don't fear any consequences? Could any Catholic really admit that the latter is the case? Is that why you never answered me when I asked you this in private? These are not rhetorical questions. If you attempt to post again without answering them, I will ban you.


Eamon Shea wrote:
As for the remainder, I think I shall leave it for later. There is much to discuss, particularly in the way of what amount to mere psychological warfare tactics, imo, but such fun shall have to wait. It seems best to stay focussed on the one main issue...


It appears that you wish to be able to make that kind of allegation whilst avoiding any response. Please be assured you will have none from me.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:51 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Yes, well this only adds to my conviction that there is no point discussing this with a partisan of your views. The burden of proof is spectacularly yours, and tricks of rhetoric won't shift it so as to justify your Guerardian oddity without further effort. Only a certain law obliges. You don't have any law at all. Ergo.


John,

The present discussion is not even about a legal obligation, but whether or not one is able to prove that it is even possible to withhold consent in the circumstances under discussion (active participation, assistance, public prayer, no expression of objecting, etc). Talk of obligatory laws, when they are not even on the table is a fine example of the tactics I referred to earlier, which I would be more than happy to discuss with you (even at length, if you like - although I thought the proper time to go into detail had not yet arrived).

Quote:
As a rule, therefore, one would think that all who sit in the pews are in communion with whomever is named in the Canon.


But what you said, in so many words, was that we do give our consent to all that the priest does as a rule.

Even with this new explanation as to what "rule" is even under discussion, however, you still are left with the positing of an exception - which you must demonstrate is real.

Quote:
And for the record, I do not agree that the mention of the pope in the Te igitur can be described as "expressing communion in the highest form possible."


This is Benedict XIV's own 'description', John, not mine.

Quote:
I dislike your continued mention of this as though I had agreed with it.


I apologize for any confusion. As I was originally writing to Mr. Daly, I shall await his statement on this point. Dealing with multiple people, and trying to summarize the issue, tends to be difficult. If you do not agree with anything Mr. Daly has said in response to me, I should like to know what, specifically. Likewise, I would be happy to go through this thread and find the specific points that have already been conceded, and by whom.

Quote:
Eamon, your sloppiness with these ideas only adds to my general view that you are wasting our time.


John,

I am not responsible for your time, any more than you are responsible for mine (and therefore, neither of us can 'waste' even one second of the other's time). I am hardly ever here, so whatever time you are talking about, it is not very much. My sloppiness? I may not be the best around, but my first two responses in this very post are largely addressed to/caused by your own desire to speak to something that was not even on the table I just set, as well as your previous lack of precision in what you meant (which happens to us all from time to time).

Quote:
And I don't understand your motive.


You now admit that you do not even understand my motive, yet you have already attributed two rather rotten ones to me (and, by extension, to all who argue as I do) in public? Excellent.

Quote:
As I asked you in private months ago, without any answer from you, will you be content if you manage to deprive my children of regular access to the sacraments, and most especially the Blessed Sacrament?


And I did not send my answer to you because the question you asked at the time was so absurd that the response I initially wrote was rather sharp. I still have it, and will send it to you tomorrow.

Btw, as God could have stopped the whole present mess from even happening, what do you think about how He has 'denied' regular access to the the sacraments to almost the entire Catholic world? How about the fact that Holy Church 'denies' such access to countless souls in countries where the so-called Orthodox priests are present, but Catholic priests are not?

Quote:
And if so, why do you make this your aim? Did somebody appoint you to an office in the Church by which you are obliged to undertake this unpleasant exercise?


Do you ask such questions of the other men you know who publicly espouse this idea, or just me? As I undertake this unpleasant exercise with such a small portion of my waking hours, I am afraid whoever appointed me to the task would be quite disappointed to see how derelict I am in my duty.

Quote:
Or are you merely confident in your novelty to the point that you don't fear any consequences? Could any Catholic really admit that the latter is the case? Is that why you never answered me when I asked you this in private? These are not rhetorical questions. If you attempt to post again without answering them, I will ban you.


Ah. Very well, I will happily send you the responses I composed to several of your genteel emails. So now, even though every question from before has not been answered, I must answer a whole new set of questions that you have just now introduced into the discussion? Rather ironic, as you have accused me of this exact behavior more than once. This is yet another tactic to which I was alluding. The bottom line is that the issue has changed again, now focusing on my motives (about which you have already spoken - privately and publicly - as if you already knew them). We have even had a little unsolicited legal counsel - from you to me - for my Particular Judgment. This is grand, John.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Last edited by Eamon Shea on Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
It appears that you wish to be able to make that kind of allegation whilst avoiding any response.


On the contrary, I think a little exchange on this point would be fruitful for all. However, I merely think that the time for (the many) details is not the present.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:13 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
The present discussion is not even about a legal obligation,

Then it is not about what is permitted or not permitted. Either you can cite a divine or human law, or you cannot. If you cannot, then you have no business telling anybody that they are not permitted to do something. This is axiomatic.


Eamon Shea wrote:
Talk of obligatory laws, when they are not even on the table is a fine example of the tactics I referred to earlier,

I see. Well the defence rests, in that case.


Eamon Shea wrote:
which I would be more than happy to discuss with you (even at length, if you like - although I thought the proper time to go into detail had not yet arrived).

No thank you. Just write what you like about me on your Web site and those who are interested may read it there.


Eamon Shea wrote:
But what you said, in so many words, was that we do give our consent to all that the priest does as a rule.

Whatever suits your agenda, Eamon.


Eamon Shea wrote:
Even with this new explanation

Tendentious. More proof that this is a waste of time.


Eamon Shea wrote:
as to what "rule" is even under discussion, however, you still are left with the positing of an exception - which you must demonstrate is real.

An exception to a non-established presumption.


Eamon Shea wrote:
This is Benedict XIV's own 'description', John, not mine.

Well, I haven't seen that, but let's see if you can be bothered to look it up and prove it one way or the other. The text I've seen mentions (if memory serves) "the highest and most noteworthy manifestation of communion" or words to that effect.


Eamon Shea wrote:
I would be happy to go through this thread and find the specific points that have already been conceded, and by whom.

Please do, if you wish to accuse me of conceding anything.


Eamon Shea wrote:
I am not responsible for your time, any more than you are responsible for mine (and therefore, neither of us can 'waste' even one second of the other's time). I am hardly ever here, so whatever time you are talking about, it is not very much.

Yes, you are wasting my time. I don't have much to spare. I don't have any interest in answering nonsensical objections to the standard approach of sedevacantists to the "problem of the una cum" especially when you've failed to address the responses already given. And if you do this on your forum, or on Fisheaters, you won't waste my time, because I won't read it and I won't be responsible for it. But here I am responsible for what is published. And therefore I have to address things, at least if nobody else does. Whilst Mr. Daly is elsewhere employed, I am therefore forced, as a result of your desire to tell the world your important information on my particular Web site, to respond to you.


Eamon Shea wrote:
You now admit that you do not even understand my motive, yet you have already attributed two rather rotten ones to me

Well, I haven't. But if you really think I've rashly judged you, please cite the occasions.

What I have done, and what you have very, very, carefully omitted to answer, is ask you to tell me why you want to convince me to take my little children and keep them at home away from the sacrament of Penance and the Blessed Sacrament tomorrow morning. Please, tell me what your motive is.


Eamon Shea wrote:
Quote:
As I asked you in private months ago, without any answer from you, will you be content if you manage to deprive my children of regular access to the sacraments, and most especially the Blessed Sacrament?


And I did not send my answer to you because the question you asked at the time was so absurd that the response I initially wrote was rather sharp. I still have it, and will send it to you tomorrow.

Eamon, here is my email. Let the reader judge for himself.
___________________________________________________________
From: John Lane
Sent: Tuesday, 6 June 2006 7:20 PM
To: 'Gladius Veritatis'
Subject: RE: a query


Dear Eamon,

The answer to your first question? You don't take the gravest matters seriously. You are manifestly infected with the spirit of victory. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you so brutally directly, but it seems it is the only way you will hear it.
<personal reference to a third party snipped>

In the mean time, reflect on this. What if you succeed in convincing somebody to stay away from Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament? Will you, on Judgement Day, claim that you studied the matter closely and diligently before speaking a word about it? Obviously not, because you haven't. Will you blame another, such as Bishop Sanborn or XYZ, perhaps? Will that suffice, Eamon? Are you completely sure? They perhaps have exceedingly good reasons for their mistake, but do you?

May the Heart of Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament be praised, adored, and loved, with grateful affection, in all the tabernacles of the world, at every moment, even until the end of time.

Yours in Christ our King,
John Lane.
___________________________________________________________

You thought that “absurd”? So absurd that it deserved a “sharp” reply? Or at least, that it provoked one that you didn’t send?


Eamon Shea wrote:
Btw, as God could have stopped the whole present mess from even happening, what do you think about how He has 'denied' regular access to the the sacraments to almost the entire Catholic world? How about the fact that Holy Church 'denies' such access to countless souls in countries where the so-called Orthodox priests are present, but Catholic priests are not?

What, so if you add to His divine wisdom in His loving Providence, and convince some more people to stay away from the sacraments, you’re just what? Doing His will? Legitimately adding to His will? What? Please tell us clearly what this means.


Eamon Shea wrote:
Quote:
And if so, why do you make this your aim? Did somebody appoint you to an office in the Church by which you are obliged to undertake this unpleasant exercise?


Do you ask such questions of the other men you know who publicly espouse this idea, or just me? As I undertake this unpleasant exercise with such a small portion of my waking hours, I am afraid whoever appointed me to the task would be quite disappointed to see how derelict I am in my duty.

Don’t avoid the question, Eamon. In your mind you’re obliged to scare people away from the sacraments, by justice or charity. Which is it? And why?


Eamon Shea wrote:
So now, even though every question from before has not been answered, I must answer a whole new set of questions that you have just now introduced into the discussion? Rather ironic, as you have accused me of this exact behavior more than once. This is yet another tactic to which I was alluding. The bottom line is that the issue has changed again, now focusing on my motives (about which you have already spoken - privately and publicly - as if you already knew them). We have even had a little unsolicited legal counsel - from you to me - for my Particular Judgment. This is grand, John.

I don’t even understand much of this, but I always endeavour to answer questions. Any question that was not obviously rhetorical, and which was directed at me, which I did not answer, please repeat it. Or retract your assertion, please.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:27 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
mmm... someone protesteth too much methinks!

Pia


Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:20 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi

Quote:
mmm... someone protesteth too much methinks!

Pia


It appears so, not to mention the fact, Eamon appears to keep missing the main point of the discussion. He keeps offering principles and citations ( few) that are operating when the Church is functioning normally. I.E. We cant received the sacraments from the eastern schismatic’s since they are in schism.

These laws are in place by the very fact the Church herself ruled them to be Schismatic, and thus we are bound by Law not to attend their services.

Today, it is " mass" confusion ( excuse the pun ) :D , by the very fact the Church herself has not ruled on who is schismatic nor, heretical. Prelates, bishops, priests, layman etc, are all calling themselves ' Catholics" no matter what their theology or actions. So the Laws forged in times when the Church is at stasis, are more " complicated" to apply during this present grave crisis.

Eamon has yet to bring any citations forward that would explain that his stance is the correct action for layman during such a crisis. John Lane mentioned point-blank that if the " anti-una cum" position was the most correct action to take, the Great Western Schism would be a source of ample citations for this, but apparently is not, since Eamon has not provided any. ( At least I have not noticed him do so.

My 2 cents, which are worth much less :)

In Xto,
Vincent


Last edited by Vince Sheridan on Sat Aug 26, 2006 2:37 am, edited 3 times in total.

Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:08 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Eamon Shea wrote:
But what you said, in so many words, was that we do give our consent to all that the priest does as a rule.

Whatever suits your agenda, Eamon.


"All are agreed that we offer the Mass with the priest, and consent to all that he does, as a rule." (emphasis in original)

These are your own words, John, not my so-called 'agenda'. Yes, more words followed these in the original post, but it is plain that my words above do not indicate some 'agenda', but are a rather accurate paraphrase of your own. I shall return to address the other sections of your mega-response, but I must get packing, as I move on Moday (and am going out of town tomorrow). God speed and a blessed weekend (esp. Sunday) to all.

Vince,

Thanks for the two cents, mate.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:07 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Eamon,

Must say have to agree with you. It is for John to prove that he is correct in going against the norm, which, as you say he has declared himself is to give consent to, to be in communion with.......etc.

It has already been observed that in order for a Mass to be Catholic it must be offered in union with the true Roman Pontiff, with his approval etc. and the priest must be acting in the person of the Church. It seems impossible to maintain that by assisting at an una cum Mass one is not 'consenting' to what the priest is doing and saying in this regard.

It would seem there are priests and prelates who strongly maintain that "our convenience does not make good what is objectively evil" and "your active participation in the una cum Mass is a statement of consent to it".

Hard to imagine a coming together on this then???

Pia


Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:18 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi,

Pia you stated :
Quote:
It has already been observed that in order for a Mass to be Catholic it must be offered in union with the true Roman Pontiff


You are referring to times of " normal" status quo in the Church. Would you not agree these are not normal times? Please give us a citation for say, during the Great Western Schism, Catholics were not attending " valid" masses. Not to mention, who living during these times knew who the real pope was during this 40 score years of 2 or 3 claimants to the See of Peter, excommunicating each other.

In Xto,
Vincent


Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:40 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 255 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.