It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:00 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
Site Admin

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

I have just removed Eamon Shea's posting privileges. I had tried via private email on several occasions to repair whatever division there was between us, as well as offer some fraternal correction. It was apparently to no avail, for which I must take total responsibility.

Unfortunately, for reasons which I am sure seem good to him, he has been relaying private information to at least one third party and that has now resulted in a breach of peace with an old friend of mine who misunderstood something. This is the second time now that a breach of peace has occurred with another party as a result of Eamon being upset by his experiences on the Bellarmine Forums and subsequently communicating with another about it.

I hold no ill-will towards Eamon, and ask his forgiveness before everybody for any offence I have given. But I think in the circumstances there is insufficient good will to allow Christian discussion, and in those circumstances I am not going to permit any further posts by him here.

Nor does he need to post here. Eamon has his own forums, as all know, and he is free to publish whatever he considers just.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:03 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
Quote:
"All are agreed that we offer the Mass with the priest, and consent to all that he does, as a rule."


Yes, my own words. Since Eamon prefers his interpretation of them to the interpretation of the one who wrote them, there is no basis for a discussion. Indeed, this is Fisheaters or Angelqueen all over. The spirit of victory rules, and any "gotcha" is a win.

I am responding to this post of Eamon's despite the fact that he is now gone, to make a few things completely clear to all.

I am a sinner and a man of numerous grievous faults. This is manifest.

I am also a family man with numerous duties and little spare time. I may or may not have something of value to offer others in the religious arena. What I think I have to offer is purely negative - a reluctance to condemn others, to cut off communion with others, to form negative judgements about others. There are some who find that offensive. I understand. These people have a zeal for Holy Church which makes them think my position is thoroughly liberal and destructive of the unity of the Church. They are entitled to their view. When all of this chaos is sorted out, it may be that people like Eamon are seen to have been right. That in fact we ought to have imposed our judgements on others and cut them off if they failed to agree with us about the V2 Nopes - or the Thuc line, or the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre's orders, or the lawfulness of non-incardinated priests offering Holy Mass, or that the SSPX was full of faults which ought to have been noised about in season and out of season, or whatever other innumerable disputes there have been.

But I don't think so. In fact, I am certain that this won't be the outcome.

Further, the Bellarmine Forums exist precisely to promote the spirit and method that I think is the way Christians should discuss controversial religious questions. I don't agree with the way any of the major "Catholic" forums are run. Nor do I have the time to moderate a forum which requires a lot of intervention.

So, if you are one of those who thinks John Lane is a stinking liberal and you don't like the way we run things here, then please leave now. There is a forum at http://www.catholicmensleague.com where you can enjoy the kind of debate you wish for. You do not need the Bellarmine Forums.

If I detect that anybody demonstrates a lack of good will towards others, then I will warn you once and then remove your posting privileges after a second occasion. We will have peace and order, as I understand those things. The posturing is over. Let your speech be Yes, yes, no, no.

If you want examples of behaviour that I consider meets our standards, please see Vince Sheridan's beautiful approach. I am trying to learn from him too. But please don't imitate his punctuation. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:48 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

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

Must say have to agree with you.


Dear Pia,

I am saddened that you have decided to abandon Fr. Baker's position on this.

Mr. Daly told me before he departed that the text we posted on the "una cum" question is from the back of the parish bulletin for 16th October 1983. He also sent me the following extract from Fr. Baker, as apropos peaceful discussion.

"Can you disagree without being disagreeable? Do you readily admit, 'I could be wrong'?. Four words to win friends. Some unhappy individuals have never learned to say, "I could be wrong." If you want relief from your tensions, you must recognise that you can be wrong. Insisting always that you are right is a childish trait that can keep you tense all your life. 'I could be wrong' is not the same as 'I am wrong'. It does not mean giving up. It means graciously leaving enough leeway for re-examination of your position. Conversing with someone who irritates you, do you make an extra effort to concentrate on the subject being discussed? Do you refrain from interrupting? Or if you really are obliged to, do you do so courteously? Do you refrain from flatly contradicting, no matter how definitely wrong you know the other to be?"

Do you take those words to heart Pia? I think they bear meditating upon.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:56 am
Profile E-mail

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

As you do not seem to have understood I have NOT abandoned Father Baker's position on this. You can go on quoting a text that you say is on his bulletin of 16th October 1983, which bulletin notes, handwritten by Father Baker, I have and which do contain the same, or anything like the same, words as you say it does, as long as you like, it does not alter the truth. Nevertheless that is beside the point.

Father Baker lived for another 23 years and even if he did write what you say he did he certainly did not hold that position for at least the last 20 years. I have several witnesses to this fact - you do not. In any court I think I would win on this point. Furthermore there are other sedevacantist bishops and priests who hold the same opinion. Indeed when one of those Bishops and some of his priests visited Father Baker just before he died he was full of praise for them and agreed wholeheartedly with their views in the presence of numerous people.

As to your other 'words of wisdom' those were written about 'conversation' and, whilst one must always be charitable, are out of place when applied to this situation. Nevertheless I hope you too realise that you can be wrong and hope you take them to heart and meditate upon them - I have many times. That way maybe we will both have friends to speak for us at our judgement day!

Pia


Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:49 pm
Profile

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

I am sure all of us agree that these are not 'normal' times - but that in itself depends on what you regard as 'normal'.

I think it is wonderful that people like you and John Lane know Catholic history almost 'back-to-front' - wonderful. But there are many souls out here who are not up to your brilliant standards but who just 'know' and 'love' their Faith and because they do know a lot more about it than many who spend all their time with their nose in a book. Not that I am accusing you of being one of those because, quite honestly, I don't know you - and I am sure you 'know' and 'love' your Faith too.

However, because I do feel that these are times are unprededented in the history of the Church I think that giving citations, or quotes, from this or that period of history, or from this or that theologian, do not necessarily help. To be quite frank comparing the Great Western Schism with these times is chalk and cheese. Sometimes it seems as if there are some who think that by studying the great theolgians and the history of the Church they will find an answer. They won't God will.

Personally I think that John has made a mistake in banning Eamon and he is the poorer for it not Eamon.

Pia


Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Pia wrote:
I think it is wonderful that people like you and John Lane know Catholic history almost 'back-to-front' - wonderful. But there are many souls out here who are not up to your brilliant standards but who just 'know' and 'love' their Faith and because they do know a lot more about it than many who spend all their time with their nose in a book. Not that I am accusing you of being one of those because, quite honestly, I don't know you - and I am sure you 'know' and 'love' your Faith too.


Dear Pia,

You should not be so critical of those who seek to know and understand the Church’s teaching. I spent several years with my "nose in a book" just to understand the little that I do understand. As we acquire this knowledge, and if we acquire it because of a sincere love of truth, we also gain a greater sense of humility. It is this humility that allows us to increase our charity towards others. Firmly correcting when a correction is truly due...and keeping silent when a correction is neither necessary or beneficial.

I believe this was the way of St. Therese...she was very forceful at times...surprisingly blunt, so to speak...but at other times she endured other’s mistakes or insufficiencies with patience and love. In reading her autobiography, it appears there were situations where one would expect from her a strong correction...but there was none.

In Christ,

Robert


Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:34 pm
Profile

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

Many thanks for responding. I would like to offer replies to some of your comments if I may;

Quote:
I am sure all of us agree that these are not 'normal' times - but that in itself depends on what you regard as 'normal'.


With " wolfs in sheep's clothing" carrying the name " bishop" and " priest", also including " cardinal" and " pope", these are as you agree not normal times. Holy Mother Church at present has not ruled yet regarding just " who is who".

As Holy writ states " when the Shepard has been struck, the sheep will scatter" ...

So posting the letter of the Law that is in operation when the Church has made a judgment and at stasis, does not seem to suffice in the present crisis. The Salvation of Souls is the highest priorty. And one needs the Holy Sacrifice and the Sacraments toward this end.


Quote:
However, because I do feel that these are times are unprededented in the history of the Church I think that giving citations, or quotes, from this or that period of history, or from this or that theologian, do not necessarily help.


Giving citations and applying " the letter of the law" when the Church was functioning in stasis, certianly does not help regarding this praticular issue. If that is what you meant, I agree ! :D



Quote:
Sometimes it seems as if there are some who think that by studying the great theolgians and the history of the Church they will find an answer. They won't God will.


Eamon, if I understand him correctly it appears is doing precisely that, he is applying the letter of the Law to Catholics during this time of almost total eclipse of the Church. Is he not? His position it seems is that one should not attend a " una cum" mass.

Quote:
Personally I think that John has made a mistake in banning Eamon and he is the poorer for it not Eamon.


I was not aware Eamon was banned, just that he was not allowed to post on other topics, until he completes this one.


In Xto,
Vincent


Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:47 pm
Profile

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

I think you should read my post again and perhaps not jump to conclusions about what I think. If you read my post I said 'many' not all (mmm now there's a thought!). And yes dear St Therese a great theologian despite her lack of 'book' theology.

Bless you Robert.

Pia


Sat Aug 26, 2006 8:41 pm
Profile

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

Absolutely right Holy Mother Church has not ruled on this BUT because these are unprecedented times She cannot do so can She? Therefore we must all use our own conscience in this whilst relying on those we each of us regard as being able - spiritually and academically - to inform our limited selves. To be honest I would not consider any layman capable of forming/informing another's conscience to this degree.

The problem is not that anyone thinks one thing and someone else, thinks another. John himself seems at one time to be saying that as there is no Law it is all a matter of opinion. However, he then seems to put down anyone who has an opinion that differs from his own unless they can quote this or that theologian etc.

I respect everyone's right to hold their own opinion. I do not have to respect their opinion. It would seem to me that no one has the right to their opinion unless it agrees with the owner. Such a forum will soon become a 'club' where all the members agree with each other and chat away to their hearts content. If you are really hoping to unite Catholics you will not do so by creating a wishy-washy mish-mash.

It is not just Eamon who ignores questions and glosses over points that others have, quite charitably and validly, made but by using one's power as owner to force others to do things when they have not been either uncharitable or rude is divisive. I am sorry but I cannot help but get the feeling of a 'Euriah Heap' about some of the posts.

Pia


Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:19 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Dear Pia,

You misunderstand me, I fear. I think that when one knows little about doctrine one tends to make somewhat harsh judgments of those who may hold different positions...I know I have done so in the past and I am sorry for it and especially any damage it may have done to some of the simpler souls to which you refer. I believe it is true that the learned can be wrong at times...almost blind it seems...but this is the exception, not the rule...we should strive to be educated in Catholic doctrine...and we learn this doctrine from the teaching of the Church in her approved teachers.

It is also true, I believe, as a rule, that it is much easier to be ignorant and wrong then properly educated and wrong.

If I understand a situation to be merely a defense of defined Church teaching...then I'll state it as a matter of fact and give my source. If I am giving my or someone else's opinion on something not so clear-cut, even if I think it solidly based on fact and Church teaching...then I'll state it as an opinion and understand that I may be wrong.

And I also fear that many misunderstand dear St. Therese as well. She was well read. The Scriptures, the Imitation of Christ she carried with her as a child, Dom Gueranger’s Liturgical Year, etc... hardly just devotional material.

I believe what I have written here is correct. But I must also believe that I may have gotten it wrong. I say this in all sincerity...the only value I can ever provide to others is to be an instrument to repeat the teaching of the Church. To repeat truth...I am in no way a source of truth. I am truly nothing.

In Christ,

Robert

P.S.
Am I wishy-washy mish-mash? :)


Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:44 pm
Profile

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

Quote:
The problem is not that anyone thinks one thing and someone else, thinks another. John himself seems at one time to be saying that as there is no Law it is all a matter of opinion. However, he then seems to put down anyone who has an opinion that differs from his own unless they can quote this or that theologian etc.


I have not gleaned this from any of John Lane's post's. The standard here : If one is going to try to " teach" others regarding a topic , John Lane wants to ensure it is in alignment with Church teaching, not just some laymen's private view, ergo: the theologians etc. This whole thread, as I see it, has been a few members trying to project their view on other Catholics that one should not attend a mass where the current claimant is mentioned ( silently ) in the canon.

If one is going to make such a argument, it behooves them to prove that this is indeed the mind of the Church. So far, the only citations put fourth to back up this claim, have been rulings , and quotes made when the church herself had declared one heretics or schismatics,and when the Church was functioning in stasis.

John Lane is trying to uphold proper standards to ensure " the mind" of the Church is expressed and understood. Instead, of what you find on Angel Queen and Fisheaters, were your exposed to endless ' rambling of layman pontificating " their" truth on others.



In Xto,


Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:37 pm
Profile

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

Have you read 'St Therese and her Mission' about St Therese's spirituality? It is a wonderful work.

I hope you won't mind if I quote some:

"It is no easy matter, as may be seen, to express in few words, and with certainty and clarity, the principle governing our relations with God. Perhaps it has been a mistake to have first consulted the Scholastic theologians and the pulpit orators; for here we are concerned with the life of the spirit.....We find ourselves in a library of spiritual writings. What is to be chosen? The stake is a serious one, for it concerns the essence of our life. From whom shall we ask light?.....What value is to be accorded them? To what extent do such books have the right to direct us? Ought we to depend upon one or another of them according to the prestige, the traditional repute, or the seeming affinities which attract us to it? But this would be to place our temporal and eternal life in a state of dependence but ill-guaranteed. Must we read them all in order to learn which one to choose? It would be a strange spiritual life - to reduce oneself to the reading of pious books!....."

Need I go on?

:lol: I am sure you are not at all mishy-mashy or wishy-washy :D

Pia


Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:46 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Sorry Vince but I do not know Angel Queen or Fisheaters and it sounds from what you say I would not want to.

I am sorry but the rest of what you say just does not make any sense. On the one hand you are saying that people are quoting the mind of the Church as it used to be. Then you say it isn't the mind of the Church at present but that John Lane is trying to ensure the "mind" of the Church is expressed. Which "mind" of the Church is John Lane trying to ensure is expressed if there is no "mind" at the moment and the others are expressing what used to be the "mind" of the Church? :?

Sorry just confused by your post.

Pia


Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:53 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
I was not aware Eamon was banned, just that he was not allowed to post on other topics, until he completes this one.


Dear Vince,

No Vince, that was the situation, but now he is not permitted to post at all.

Dear Vince, Pia, and all,

I think you will readily agree that if we are to consider anything properly, no matter what it is but especially if it is a difficult matter, we need to have our minds at rest. That is, we need interior peace. I try not to post if I am excited. This is not easy and often I do not succeed, posting under the influence of an interior excitement. But that is the ideal, and we should all be striving to achieve it so that we can contribute instead of detracting from the discussion, and so that we may guard against being tricked by the devil into a rash and false judgement on any matter. And of course, to eliminate as far as possible words which offend God.

I am therefore quite set in my determination to have peace here. If anybody does not agree with anybody else, including me, they are welcome to say so and say why. Nicely. If however I think that they are disturbing the peace of the forums (or off the forums in my own private life) I will deal with the situation to ensure peace. I make no apology for this. I was told yesterday by the old friend whom Eamon's precipitate actions almost turned into an enemy (we repaired the friendship, thank God), that there are numerous people "out there" who actually hate me. And I told him that I do not care about that, and I really don't (which is a grace for which I am deeply grateful). But it makes no sense to have those people wrecking the peace of this forum. They can pour forth their dislike of me in other places to their hearts' content. They may even be entirely right about me. In heaven we will all know. But in the mean time we have to have peace to have any chance of progress in clarity regarding disputed matters.

Of course it will happen occasionally that I or another moderator will misunderstand, act unjustly, etc. I am telling you that I am aware that I am not perfect. But I am also asserting that I act in complete good faith as far as I can tell, and take pains to be just to all, so that if I fail in these things it is because of weakness, not malice. If you don't accept this assurance then you have no business here at all. If you think I have some malign agenda or a dishonest approach to controversy, you should leave. Shake the dust off your feet. But if you think merely that I need some correction, please give it, peacefully and directly.

We are not going to have any more of this situation in which people are really here to prosecute an agenda of their own, whilst pretending to be engaging in honest discussion. Let your speech be Yes yes, no, no.

Just glancing through the last few posts, which I have not yet read properly, and I am pleased to see the peaceful and charitable but direct comments being made. Yes Pia, if you think that I tend to be good to people who agree with me and bad to people who do not, please say so - but provide specific examples.

Pia wrote:
John himself seems at one time to be saying that as there is no Law it is all a matter of opinion. However, he then seems to put down anyone who has an opinion that differs from his own unless they can quote this or that theologian etc.


If there is no law, there is no prohibition. All that I was trying to get Eamon to do was state the law he thinks applies. I presume it is either the divine law which prohibits us from entering into occasions in which there is danger of perversion or the divine law which prohibits us from giving scandal. But he did not appear to realise what his own argument was, or he would simply have stated the law and why it applies to the case.

I have no desire to "put down" anybody, Pia. But we need to enforce a standard. The standard is that we will be taught by the Church, which means we will take as our rule of faith the preaching of the Church. On disputed matters we will remain in peace with all who disagree with us until the dispute is settled by Holy Mother Church. This I understand to be the mind of the Church, and I also understand it to be the mind of Fr. Baker. Indeed, along with Patrick Omlor and Bill Morgan he was one of the most outstanding exponents of this great and essential distinction between matters determined for all by the Church, and matters not yet settled and therefore legitimately disputed.

None of us enjoys having so many matters legitimately disputed. But that is what Providence has arranged, for our sanctification and for God's greater glory. Our task is to try and remain safe whilst avoiding sins of rash judgement and schism. Nobody thinks it is easy. But we know it is possible, because of the wonderful example of men like Fr. Baker and the others, but also because a priori we know that God gives sufficient grace for us to avoid all sin - if we pray for it.

Am I making sense?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:04 am
Profile E-mail

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



Quote:
On the one hand you are saying that people are quoting the mind of the Church as it used to be. Then you say it isn't the mind of the Church at present but that John Lane is trying to ensure the "mind" of the Church is expressed. Which "mind" of the Church is John Lane trying to ensure is expressed if there is no "mind" at the moment and the others are expressing what used to be the "mind" of the Church?



Pia,

I did not think I conveyed this when I re-read my post before hitting the reply button. I am sorry if I confused you. . I am not saying the mind of the Church has changed, what has changed is that at present the Church is not functioning in her normal mode . Many people quote the letter of the Law for when the church has already judged persons to be heretics.
John Lane is upholding the standard that private layman cannot invent their own "theology" and state that it is the "mind of the Church". We learn our Faith from the church approved teachers i.e. her catechisms and approved theologians. Not by for example ; Mike68's method of "private interpretation of the bible and selected 'solemn' pronouncements".

That was the point I was trying to make.

In Xto,
Vincent


Sun Aug 27, 2006 2:50 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:24 am
Posts: 24
Location: Victoria, Australia
New post 
I thought it was the policy of angelqueen.org to ban anyone who disagrees with the Forum admin. Surely St. Robert Bellarmine forums are not going the same way?

_________________
In Christ Our Lord
Dylan


Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:11 am
Profile

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

The problem is that to some John himself is inventing his own "theology" and trying to use citations to back this up which so far, I am sorry to say, (for it would make things much easier) he has been unable to do (to some that is).

He has his own 'view' of matters such as attending an SSPX Mass. The other side to this view has been quite thoroughly dealt with by such as Bishop Sanborn, Fr Cekada, et al. Many lay Catholics may not be able to 'quote' from the 'Law' why it is, in their opinion, wrong to assist at an SSPX Mass they just 'know' with their innate Catholic sense and conscience that it is wrong. I should add that this applies whether you are of the sedevacantist view or the SSPX. ( I have more than one SSPX friend who says they can fully understand why someone who thinks the See of Peter is vacant would not attend an SSPX Mass.)

You see it is John's position which is not the 'normal' Catholic response. Of course because these are extraordinary times he 'may be' entitled to follow his conscience. Father Baker once received a letter from someone who said that he felt he had to go to an SSPX Mass because he had a young family. Father Baker told us he could 'understand' this persons dilemma but he could not personally agree with his solution. This is what Father Baker (and others like him) meant when he said 'Who am I to say?' NOT that he himself was uncertain that one should NOT attend but that he had not the JUDICIAL AUTHORITY to insist that a soul should not.

Now as to the charity of dealing with souls who HAD decided to attend, Father Baker knew that in these extraordinary times he had the right to decide what he should do 'pastorally' i.e. for his own reasons (which many of us well knew). However he also knew that Bishop Sanborn and those like him had chosen a more 'outspoken' pastoral approach and he had no criticism of this. Neither, as far as I am aware, did he think that this view was in any way uncharitable to other Catholics. Time and God will, of course, decide who or what approach is correct.

Sometimes when one holds a certain position it appears as if one is 'uncharitable' when in fact all that is happening is that the two positions are so far opposed to one another that there can be no meeting of minds or hearts. Some feel that in this case they cannot give the appearance of, in any way, shape or form, accepting another's point of view. Surely this is only normal and human and yes 'understandable'.

Pia


Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:42 am
Profile

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

Pia,

Hope all is well in your part of God's Vineyard. Please allow me to respond to one of your comments;

Quote:
You see it is John's position which is not the 'normal' Catholic response


What are you basing as " normal' in these completely " un-normal" times? But lets look at this another way, if we looked at pure numbers, I would think John Lanes view, ( and I do agree with him ) is most likely the majority view. The CMRI also hold this view, as do many non-CMRI sede priest. and of the sedevcantist communities, me thinks the CMRI are the largest both in numbers of clergy and families attending their chapels.

In Xto,
Vincent

P.S. John- I was absent in school when punctuation was taught :D Actually, I like to think English is my second language , without having a first :D


Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:34 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
Indeed when one of those Bishops and some of his priests visited Father Baker just before he died he was full of praise for them and agreed wholeheartedly with their views in the presence of numerous people.


I presume this was Bishop Sanborn. Is this your way of admitting now that Fr. Baker did not doubt Archbishop Lefebvre's orders?

:)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:38 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
He has his own 'view' of matters such as attending an SSPX Mass. The other side to this view has been quite thoroughly dealt with by such as Bishop Sanborn, Fr Cekada, et al. Many lay Catholics may not be able to 'quote' from the 'Law' why it is, in their opinion, wrong to assist at an SSPX Mass they just 'know' with their innate Catholic sense and conscience that it is wrong.


Dear Vince,

Pia still thinks this is about whether or not one may assist at a Mass offered by a priest of the SSPX. It was actually, as all know, about whether or not one may assist at a Mass in which the Nope is named as Pope in the Canon. I gave up trying to explain this distinction some pages back.

Dear Pia,

Fr. Baker may or may not have shifted position on whether he thought it licit to assist at a Mass offered by a member of the SSPX, but he agreed to have Fr. Paul Morgan offer his requiem. Therefore we know what his position was when he died.

Further, and this is quite distinct even though you cannot distinghuish the two cases, he never adopted the "anti una cum" position, and if he did there would be some evidence of it.

He published his position in 1983, and he never retracted it or published an alternative position. Did he? Why do you think that was?

As for your "just knowing" I find that terrifying. Are you saying that your Catholic Sense is infallible? Or merely that mine (and that of all the CMRI priests and all the other sedevacantist clergy, and all of those laymen, etc., over decades) is defective, unlike yours? Or are we all just schismatics etc. like you say the SSPX are?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:50 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:34 am
Posts: 36
New post 
Dylan Byrne wrote:
I thought it was the policy of angelqueen.org to ban anyone who disagrees with the Forum admin. Surely St. Robert Bellarmine forums are not going the same way?


Well, you are still here. :lol:


Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:08 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:34 am
Posts: 36
New post 
Pia,

Pia wrote:
Vince,

The problem is that to some John himself is inventing his own "theology" and trying to use citations to back this up which so far, I am sorry to say, (for it would make things much easier) he has been unable to do (to some that is).


For every "some" that has this problem, I'll give you a virtual dime for "every" that doesn't. You'll get rich quick. :) I know lots of people who have read and re-read John Lane's arguments in defence of attendance at an "una cum" mass and have been convinced as a result of his excellent use of drawing from the appropriate sources. The fact that "some" have been unable to understand the relevance of the citations Mr. Lane quotes does not detract from the validity of them. Is it possible these "some" simply just don't understand, dare I ask? There are "some" souls out there who don't understand that the Catholic Church is the Ark of Salvation and cannot see that the citations we use prove it. Does that make the arguments of the Catholic Church invalid?

Pia wrote:
He has his own 'view' of matters such as attending an SSPX Mass.


Not all at his own 'view'. This is a most unfair remark, Pia. That Mr. Lane has not invented this view has been proved rather thoroughly if you can take the time to read through this massive thread. And then sit back and try and understand it.

Pia wrote:
The other side to this view has been quite thoroughly dealt with by such as Bishop Sanborn, Fr Cekada, et al.


Has it? I've not seen any articles written by Fr. Cekada. Can you point us in the right direction here? As for Bishop Sanborn, well he uses a lot of citations to back up his opinion which I am sorry to say, he has been unable to do. :) :roll: :shock:

Pia wrote:
Many lay Catholics may not be able to 'quote' from the 'Law' why it is, in their opinion, wrong to assist at an SSPX Mass they just 'know' with their innate Catholic sense and conscience that it is wrong.


And to the contrary, many lay Catholics' innate Catholic sense tells them no such thing.

Pia wrote:
You see it is John's position which is not the 'normal' Catholic response. Of course because these are extraordinary times he 'may be' entitled to follow his conscience.


What an extraordinary thought! Mr. Lane is not only entitled to follow his conscience in extraordinary times, he is actually bound to follow it all times! And further he is bound to inform his conscience first, as all Catholics are. And if anything, it looks to me as if he has gone to greater lengths than most to study this issue, so that he does act with an informed conscience.

Pia wrote:
Sometimes when one holds a certain position it appears as if one is 'uncharitable' when in fact all that is happening is that the two positions are so far opposed to one another that there can be no meeting of minds or hearts. Some feel that in this case they cannot give the appearance of, in any way, shape or form, accepting another's point of view. Surely this is only normal and human and yes 'understandable'.


No, I respectfully disagree. It is not normal and human and understandable, for Catholics. We follow a different set of rules from the rest of the world. We should strive to agree to disagree in matters not settled by Holy Mother Church, until such a date when they are. May that day come soon, please God! We are required to grant good will to those opposed to our opinions, and even when the evidence for our own view seems overwhelming, we should avoid making harsh judgements and creating a break in charity and unity. We should be striving to accept that others can and do hold different opinions, in these controverted matters, remaining diffident in ours and at all times aiming for that perfect "meeting of minds in hearts" in the faith. So that the world will point to us and say, "Look at those traditional Catholics/SSPX attendees/Sedevacantists/Thuc line accepters - See how they love one another." :)

God Bless you.


Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:07 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
For the last time -

You have not yet proved that Fr Baker actually did write what you say he did but even so, allowing you the benefit, I have told you quite plainly what his position was and yes there is plenty of evidence both in writing and in words - just read the next ten years of his bulletins! Not to mention Eye Witness accounts.

You may think it is clever/funny to try and make some distinction between an SSPX Mass and placing the name of Vatican II popes (how silly is that word Nope!) in the canon of the Mass, when in fact we all know what we are talking about, but it does you no favours.

And just to make it absolutely clear - despite having already told you once - it was NOT Father Baker's decision to have Fr Paul Morgan offer his requiem - it was mine. Firstly Father Baker said it did not matter to him - a layman would do to bury him and secondly he specifically said that he would prefer a layman, EVEN THOUGH THE PRIEST PROMISED TO SAY A NON-UNA CUM MASS (I have my own view as to the integrity of such priests) as this would avoid scandal - so you see YOU ARE WRONG.

In addition I have yet to meet one CMRI priest who, when asked, has said it is fine to assist at the Mass of a priest who puts the name of one of the Vatican II popes in his Mass - and I have asked a few. As to your accusation that ALL the CMRI priests, other sedevacante clergy etc. think as you do - firstly I refer to my comment above re CMRI and secondly all I can say is we must be living on different planets because it certainly is not the same as the one I and many others are on.

Finally I prefer my, or indeed almost anyone else's 'Catholic sense' to yours and again your answer shows your 'Euriah Heap' charity for what it really is - and that indeed is terrifying!

Pia


Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:53 pm
Profile

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

Thank you for your charity in thinking that I have neither read nor 'understood' Mr Lane's copious articles and citations.

Bishop Sanborn? - not that I know him well - I believe he has used citations but once again if all you turn to are citations I feel very sorry for you, especially if that is the sole basis of your understanding/judgement.

I fully agree Mr Lane is bound to follow his conscience- even if it is erroneous - but as you say he is also bound to inform it first. Full marks!

I have never said anything about not having goodwill to those whose opinions differ from mine - it is those who hold your views that do not have goodwill towards those who hold mine. Unity? I am tempted to ask if you know what true Unity means? There are those who would call for Peace no matter what the cost. No you cannot have Unity at the expense of Truth. Yes, if you want a fantasy world, it would indeed be very nice for ALL traditionalists to agree to disagree but on something as important as this it is not going to happen it sems.

As St Teresa of Avila famously said "With friends like you who needs enemies!"

Pia


Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:31 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post 
Dear Pia,

It has been my intention to avoid commenting on these issues, but as I watch this forum dwindle rapidly to ill informed rhetoric, I feel compelled to reply at least to your charge that that you have not met a CMRI priest who would agree with John on the right to attend an una cum Mass. Being good friends with many of the CMRI priests and more specifically Bishop Pivarunas I must opine that I do not know of one CMRI priest who DOES NOT agree with John, including the Bishop who has given several of my children permission to attend the masses of St. Pius X priests, even una cum (validity assumed). While I personally would not go to an una cum mass due to my own conscience in this regard, it would be impossible for me to quote the church teaching that specifically prohibits this action. However, this argument aside. you are mistaken about the CMRI priests and their stance in this matter. I would love to hear the names of the CMRI priests you have questioned, as I am sure I know them quite well.

In Christ Our Lord,

respectfully yours,

Tommy


Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:26 pm
Profile E-mail
New post 
Dear Pia, Now I am really confused. I am assuming you are a family member of Fr. Baker R.I.P., which is how you ended up choosing the Priest to offer his Requiem. How could he ask for a layman to bury him? Or is that actually to mean digging the grave for this obviously beloved soul? There must be a big piece of the story missing, aside from his una cum position. I have never heard of Fr. Baker before this discussion, and I may not be the only one. From this thread I gather ten years ago he died? Was he connected to Bishop Dolan in some way? Meanwhile, I'll see if google has anything. with love, Eliz.


Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:53 pm

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

You are absolutely right :lol: it probably has 'dwindled rapidly to ill informed rhetoric' especially as you seem to think that I have said that I "have not met a CMRI priest who would agree with John on the right to attend an una cum Mass" for I said no such thing!

However, I have asked most of the CMRI priests who have come to England whether it is ok to attend an SSPX, or any other, Tridentine una cum Mass? - there is a difference.

However, I am interested and grateful to hear what you say about Bishop Pivarunas for if what you say is true then I have to ask why when I asked for my own daughter I was told no. 'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to decieve'.

There is no Church Law specifically prohibiting this action because this action is unprecedented. Nevertheless we can deduce from Church teaching that if you are a sedevacantist you should not attend. Right or no right.

Pia


Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:00 pm
Profile

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

Quote:
Is this your way of admitting now that Father Baker did not doubt Archbishop Lefebvre's orders?


As Bishop Sanborn was consecrated by Archbishop Thuc surely this no longer applies? :)

Pia


Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:58 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
eliz carroll wrote:
Dear Pia, Now I am really confused. I am assuming you are a family member of Fr. Baker R.I.P., which is how you ended up choosing the Priest to offer his Requiem. How could he ask for a layman to bury him? Or is that actually to mean digging the grave for this obviously beloved soul? There must be a big piece of the story missing, aside from his una cum position. I have never heard of Fr. Baker before this discussion, and I may not be the only one. From this thread I gather ten years ago he died? Was he connected to Bishop Dolan in some way? Meanwhile, I'll see if google has anything. with love, Eliz.


Dear Eliz,

I didn't know Fr. Baker either. I don't think we need to have known Fr. Baker to understand the issue here. I understand that there is a dispute about what his position actually was...but that is a side issue...in my opinion.

The issue would be the same even if no one had ever heard of Fr. Baker. I think this whole discussion regarding Fr. Baker is confusing, and because of that, it is of no value.


Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:03 pm
Profile
Site Admin

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


Pia wrote:
You have not yet proved that Fr Baker actually did write what you say he did but even so, allowing you the benefit, I have told you quite plainly what his position was and yes there is plenty of evidence both in writing and in words - just read the next ten years of his bulletins! Not to mention Eye Witness accounts.


There is one eye witness - you. And you have demonstrated that you don't make the necessary distinctions, but further, your witness is not internally consistent.


Pia wrote:
You may think it is clever/funny to try and make some distinction between an SSPX Mass and placing the name of Vatican II popes (how silly is that word Nope!) in the canon of the Mass, when in fact we all know what we are talking about, but it does you no favours.


I think it neither clever nor funny to make the distinction. Hutton Gibson says don't go because Archbishop Lefebvre's orders were invalid. And he says don't go to Thuc priests because they've not been "sent" by legitimate authority and are therefore "wildcat priests." Bishop Sanborn says that we shouldn't go because for the Mass to be a "Catholic Mass" it must be offered by the Church, and the mention of the pope by name in the Canon makes him a co-offerer of that Mass, so that if the priest mentions the wrong name the Mass is not thereby offered by and in union with the true Church but by a false church and we must therefore avoid it. Yes, I know that's convoluted and novel, and yes, I think it is weird. But that's his position, as I understand it. Others that I know personally think that the "anti-una cum" position is not established, but that in any case the SSPX is "with rome" in some substantial way, cannot be trusted, and therefore constitutes a danger of perversion which must necessarily be avoided. Others have a simpler view which consists of regarding the "pope issue" as a matter of such importance for the unity of the Church and the integrity of the Faith that they are obliged to witness to the non-validity of the claims of the V2 Nopes, even to the degree that they will sacrifice being able to assist at Mass. This was the reasoning presented to me ten years ago by Bishop McKenna, although his conclusion was that he thought it a "better witness" not to go, but he did not demand it. I could add other reasons for not going to Masses offered by people we don't agree with in some point or other if you like - there are almost as many reasons as there are traditional Catholics.

So you see, my dear, there are numerous real or not-real distinctions made by men of good will who possess and profess the Catholic Faith, and yet who do not agree with each other or with me. You may think they're all insincere like me, and just making those distinctions to be "clever" or "funny," but frankly, I think your attitude is unnecessarily contemptuous of others.


Pia wrote:
And just to make it absolutely clear - despite having already told you once - it was NOT Father Baker's decision to have Fr Paul Morgan offer his requiem - it was mine.


My apology for the mistake.

Pia wrote:
Firstly Father Baker said it did not matter to him - a layman would do to bury him and secondly he specifically said that he would prefer a layman, EVEN THOUGH THE PRIEST PROMISED TO SAY A NON-UNA CUM MASS (I have my own view as to the integrity of such priests) as this would avoid scandal - so you see YOU ARE WRONG.


I'm quite capable of being wrong, but the day has long passed when I would change my mind based on your testimony, Pia. So you are telling us that despite Fr. Baker's express wishes not to have a priest who was a member of the SSPX, even if he avoided the "una cum," and despite his doubts about the validity of their orders, you selected an SSPX priest to offer his requiem Mass?


Pia wrote:
Finally I prefer my, or indeed almost anyone else's 'Catholic sense' to yours and again your answer shows your 'Euriah Heap' charity for what it really is - and that indeed is terrifying!


Pia, it seems to me that every time I disagree with you I am accused of lacking charity. Do you realise that in accord with the best spiritual doctrine you are giving me a supernatural motive to find things to disagree with you about? :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:08 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post 
Pia,

I obviously cannot answer why the Bishop allegedly told you that your daughter could not attend the "una cum mass" as it would be pure speculation on my part (I do not speak for the Bishop or the CMRI) and would demand that I believe this to be the case without confirmation. What I do know is that Bishop Pivarunas does grant permission to attend "una cum" masses when no other vaild masses are available, and to the best of my knowledge this has always been his position as well as the position of the CMRI clergy.

My apologies for assuming that when you stated that "you have yet to meet one CMRI priest, who when asked has said it is fine to assist at the Mass of a priest who puts the name of one of the Vatican II popes in his mass-and I have asked a few" that you meant that none of the CMRI priests you asked ( a few I presume) stated it was OK to assist at these "una cum" masses. For the sake of the onlooker, exactly what did you mean? Perhaps for my sake you could tell me the name of these few CMRI priests you have spoken to? Pardon my inability to follow your prose, but I am bewildered as to whom you are implying is guilty of deceit?

While I believe that it is wrong for me to attend an "una cum" mass or one that is said in communion with a false Pope, I also believe that I have no right to oblige any other Catholic to obey my conclusion on this matter. It is at this point my opinion, and while I believe this, I have no authority to demand that others believe it as well.

Yours in Christ,

Tommy


Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:13 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

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

Quote:
Is this your way of admitting now that Father Baker did not doubt Archbishop Lefebvre's orders?


As Bishop Sanborn was consecrated by Archbishop Thuc surely this no longer applies? :)

Pia


No, some authors say that the episcopal consecration contains the sacerdotal ordination and therefore would "repair" the problem. Others say that the sacerdotal orders are an essential prerequesite for valid episcopal orders. It's a disputed question.

In respect of sacramental validity we are strictly obliged to the safe course.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:13 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Pia wrote:
Dear Tommy,

You are absolutely right :lol: it probably has 'dwindled rapidly to ill informed rhetoric' especially as you seem to think that I have said that I "have not met a CMRI priest who would agree with John on the right to attend an una cum Mass" for I said no such thing!

However, I have asked most of the CMRI priests who have come to England whether it is ok to attend an SSPX, or any other, Tridentine una cum Mass? - there is a difference.

However, I am interested and grateful to hear what you say about Bishop Pivarunas for if what you say is true then I have to ask why when I asked for my own daughter I was told no. 'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to decieve'.

There is no Church Law specifically prohibiting this action because this action is unprecedented. Nevertheless we can deduce from Church teaching that if you are a sedevacantist you should not attend. Right or no right.

Pia


Dear Pia,

You have managed to really confuse me. Or are you confused? :)

Pia wrote:
However, I have asked most of the CMRI priests who have come to England whether it is ok to attend an SSPX, or any other, Tridentine una cum Mass? - there is a difference.


This is not very clear...exactly what did you ask them? This question is, at best, imprecise.

Pia wrote:
There is no Church Law specifically prohibiting this action because this action is unprecedented. Nevertheless we can deduce from Church teaching that if you are a sedevacantist you should not attend. Right or no right.


Precisely! The key is that there is no Church Law.

Nevertheless, YOU can deduce from Church teaching that if YOU are a sedevacantist YOU should not attend.

What, Pia, if I do not deduce this from Church teaching?


Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:18 pm
Profile

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

Sorry if I confuse you. I probably do not have the erudition that some seem to have. I have asked the following questions. 1. As my daughter is going to University and has no access to a non-una cum tridentine Mass would it be in order for her to attend the SSPX Mass center in order to receive the sacraments? and 2. What is your opinion Father on assisting at an SSPX Mass where the priest says an una cum Mass?

Now the interesting thing Tommy is your final paragraph starting "While I believe it is wrong for me to attend an "una cum" Mass ....etc" for as a matter of fact what you have stated is exactly what I said was Father Baker's position and, in fact, my own.

Pia


Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:21 pm
Profile

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

As above sorry if I confuse you :? Also as above re questions asked. As for the YOU bit you can also mean one or indeed can be plural.

If YOU do not perceive this I can only repeat "it was always the same, it is still the same, it will always be the same, for those who will open their eyes and see..... Those who do not see pass by, and ignore, and be satisfied with their blindness"

If it is I who am blind I hope that I may see.

Pia


Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post 
Dear Pia,

I confess that I was operating under the impression that your actual question was, why did the Bishop tell you your daughter could not attend the SSPX Mass yet tell me that mine could. My answer remains that o the best of my knowledge the Bishop would allow your daughter to attend the SSPX Mass assuming validity of the priest. He has certainly granted this permission to 2 of my children, who have no other mass to attend. This being stated I cannot and would not attend these masses, and my children are aware of this. One of my kids will not attend the SSPX mass and the other does.

Your question # 2 is confusing to me. Are you asking me or some 'Father?"

I also remain curious as to the CMRI priests who have informed you not to attend the "una cum" masses.

Tommy


Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:42 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !
1. Dear Pia,
Your stated the following;
Quote:
I "have not met a CMRI priest who would agree with John on the right to attend an una cum Mass"


Can you please name the CMRI priests who told you that it is " never" permissible to attend a una cum Mass? If I have misunderstood you, please verify what exactly the CMRI priest 's told you regarding una cum attendance. I ask this, because I know many of the CMRI priests personally, the following listed I have spoken one on one about this very topic and all stated it was permissible to attend una cum mass's out of necessity. And they all named the SSPX, me thinks it is the official position of the CMRI to allow this.

Bishop Pivarunas-
Fr. Casimer Puskorius
Fr. Benedict Hughes
Fr. Brendan Hughes
Fr. Gerad McKee
Fr. John Trough
Fr. Dominc Radecki
Fr. Michael Anaya
Fr. James McGilloway


Last edited by Vince Sheridan on Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:58 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post 
Tommy Short wrote:
I confess that I was operating under the impression that your actual question was, why did the Bishop tell you your daughter could not attend the SSPX Mass yet tell me that mine could. My answer remains that o the best of my knowledge the Bishop would allow your daughter to attend the SSPX Mass assuming validity of the priest. Tommy


Dear Tommy,

Not to get off the subject but, I'm not sure I understand you correctly when you use the word "allow." Is this the bishop's word or is it yours? It seems to me to convey some sort of jurisdiction.

God bless,

Lance


Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:14 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post CMRI position on the Una Cum issue
Hi all,

The CMRI has made their position on the Una Cum issue public for all to read, so there should be no confusion on it. Bishop Pivarunas, on August 10, 2002 presented the official position of the CMRI in this public statement, which is appended to John Lane's excellent 2002 article on the subject. I post it below:

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/una_cum.html

Appendix

Bp. Mark Pivarunas and his brethren, of the C.M.R.I., have provided the following statement in relation to so-called “una cum” Masses, to be appended to this article.

"The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (C.M.R.I.) holds that the Catholic faithful may petition the Sacraments from traditional Catholic priests who unfortunately offer their Masses "una cum" (John Paul II).

"Although C.M.R.I. does not accept John Paul II as a legitimate successor of St. Peter, it does not consider such traditional priests (who offer "una cum" Masses) as schismatic. For, if such priests were schismatic in the canonical sense of the word, then they would be required, upon their recognition of the vacancy of the Apostolic See, to abjure their error and be received back into the Church.

"Nevertheless, it has never been the practice of any traditional bishop or priest to require this abjuration of error of any priest who at one time mistakenly recognized John Paul II as a true pope.

"This does not mean that C.M.R.I. in any way endorses the theological contradiction of those traditional priests who maintain that John Paul II is a true pope.

"Lastly, we exhort the faithful to use great discretion when they approach such priests for the Sacraments. This is especially true in regard to their children, who may be confused by their erroneous opinions on the Papacy and on the infallibility of the Church."

Bp. Mark Pivarunas, C.M.R.I., Superior General

The Priests of C.M.R.I.

August 10, 2002


Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:27 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post 
Lance,

I apologize for my poor choice of words. It is only out of respect, loyalty and my desire to be obedient that I find it most appropriate to seek the "approval" if you will of Bishop Pivarunas in matters such as these. I certainly make no apologies for that, it is simply a spiritual decision I have made for myself and my family. The Bishop has never claimed any authority over me or jurisdiction as far as I am aware. I hope this helps your curiosity. The word "allow" is completely mine. God help us! What a mess of enormous proportions this entire sorted affair remains. We are all so busy splitting hairs, including myself.

Tommy


Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:38 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post 
Dear Tommy,

That's what I thought. I wish you the best, my friend.

God bless,

Lance


Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:56 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:34 am
Posts: 36
New post 
Dear Pia,

Pia wrote:
Laudanum,


Bishop Sanborn? - not that I know him well - I believe he has used citations but once again if all you turn to are citations I feel very sorry for you, especially if that is the sole basis of your understanding/judgement.


How you drew the conclusion that citations are the sole basis for my understanding/judgement is beyond me. However, in this matter of una cum, the question is "Is it lawful to attend an una cum mass?" And therefore, if one is going to answer in the negative then one is going to need to use citations to show it's unlawfulness. Otherwise, we would be reduced to accepting merely an opinion for its own sake, on a rather grave matter where our souls are at stake. I'll take the safer course and ask for citations.

Pia wrote:
I fully agree Mr Lane is bound to follow his conscience- even if it is erroneous - but as you say he is also bound to inform it first. Full marks!


So just what is the problem, I ask? Your conscience tells you not to attend an una cum mass, others consciences tell them it is lawful to attend. As long as all have informed their consciences, as Mr. Lane has done, then everybody should be apples! :)

As long as no one is imposing their conscience on others, nor casting aspersions on others for differing; thinking them uncharitable or enemies or schismatics or public sinners for their opposing views, then we are all in the clear.

Pia wrote:
I have never said anything about not having goodwill to those whose opinions differ from mine - it is those who hold your views that do not have goodwill towards those who hold mine.


That is quite an accusation. I've not seen any evidence on this forum. To the contrary, I have seen others being rather tolerant under what looks to me like extreme provocation. :wink:

Pia wrote:
Unity? I am tempted to ask if you know what true Unity means? There are those who would call for Peace no matter what the cost. No you cannot have Unity at the expense of Truth.


And I haven't seen anyone here claim any different. A problem only arises if anyone should be so bold as to elevate their opinion on a controverted matter to the level of a Truth of the Church. One can have certitude that their opinion is right, and in fact, one should have certitude in a matter of such import as whether or not they can hear Holy Mass and received Our Lord's Body and Blood. But until Holy Mother Church speaks on the question, we cannot impose our certitude on others nor question others orthodoxy for differing, but rather we should dwell on the mystery and privilege of being united in the Catholic faith. This is one way that we can work towards preserving unity as fellow members of the Mystical Body of Christ in these dire times where we are lacking our visible Head.


Pia wrote:
Yes, if you want a fantasy world, it would indeed be very nice for ALL traditionalists to agree to disagree but on something as important as this it is not going to happen it sems.


As this is lamentably the case, all the more reason to strive harder to retain peace and charity! This is our test. I see no value in being "right" but in sacrificing the bonds of charity in the bargain. We will be judged as we judge, and I am sure we all want to be judged with every excuse possible. :)

Pia wrote:
As St Teresa of Avila famously said "With friends like you who needs enemies!"


I am sorry, but you're stuck with me whether you like it or not. So while we are here, let's make the most of it, and try to find some simple issue we hold in common, shall we? So, do you like Brownies? And if so, do you like them with or without walnuts? :)

Oh, just a couple more things. I asked you in a previous post to tell me where I can find Father Cekada's document on the una cum, as you said he has thoroughly dealt with it.

The other thing is that I am not familiar at all with the above quote you give from St Teresa of Avila, pardon my ignorance. Can you also point to me where I can find this? I only know of these famous words she spoke to our Lord, "If this is how you treat your friends, it is no wonder you have so few of them."

God bless you!


Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:32 am
Profile

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

:D We seem to have some confusion again :D The questions were addressed to the CMRI priests not you :D

By the way just to clear things up - Father Baker has no successor at Downham Market.

Pia


Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:59 am
Profile

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

(I wish there was a smilie for a sigh - maybe there is?). I am trying so hard to find anything I lke about the attitude of the Catholics on this forum and to be honest I am finding their style more and more dislikeable. No doubt they feel exactly the same about me. I can only thank God that I am not in an enclosed order with the likes of many here for unlike St Therese I do not think I would be able to put up with them.

The style of Charity exhibited here is not what we at Downham Market were taught - and we had a wonderful teacher. I was talking with a wise Catholic friend yesterday and she gave me some sound advice which was "If these people are causing you disquiet and upset of the soul then beware. If you are sure in your own heart and soul of your position (which I am) and they cannot provide you with any evidence to change that position, without barbed comments and picking you up on this or that quotation or demanding this or that citation, then they are not of God for God wants only peace for your soul."

You know I have a feeling she was absolutely right.

Pia


Mon Aug 28, 2006 8:15 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post 
Quote:
God wants only peace for your soul.


Pia this is so true. However disquiet in us canbe thatof the mind and body and soul brought on not always by the devil but also by our own 'uncertainties' about a variety of things, including our seven capital sins. The last time I had a disquiet stomach was when I ate too much. Gluttonous I admit but there it was.

I don't think John Lane quite ACCUSE you of heresy.

I guess I am saying, please don't get too 'disquieted', and I am not accusing you of anything but beseeching you to handle this with peace. Unless you really think that this forum is 'of the devil' in which case you most certainly must leave it post-haste.


Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:59 pm
Profile

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

:) Thank you for your post (especially the bit about eating too much :lol: ). Not sure about 'of the devil' but you could be right I suppose.

Pia


Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:38 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
"If you are sure in your own heart and soul of your position (which I am) and they cannot provide you with any evidence to change that position, without barbed comments and picking you up on this or that quotation or demanding this or that citation, then they are not of God for God wants only peace for your soul."


Dear Pia,

Nobody has tried to change your position. This "anti una cum" nonsense has been foisted upon us by others from the beginning, and I and the others here have merely defended the right of Catholics to assist at Holy Mass as they have done for decades. We are the ones being attacked, and we are defending ourselves.

I don't wish to discuss the subject at all. I never did. I have complained about it being constantly brought up. I wanted to promote the fact that Benedict is a fraud and put forward strong arguments as to why etc. Instead a few pestiferous individuals have seen these forums as a means of promoting their own personal conviction that everybody has to avoid Holy Mass if Benedict is named as pope in the Canon (or if it's offered by somebody that fails to sit at their feet and agree with everything they believe).

I'm sorry that for whatever reason you misunderstood and thought that your position was under assault. It is not and has not been, as far as I can tell. Does that restore your peace?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
I apoligize if this has already been answered. What I would like to know is what position would the "anti-una cum" crowd take on the masses offered by any Catholic priest during the reign of an Antipope?

When everyone believed "Felix V" to be pope from 1439 to 1449 did the church cease to exist becuase of everyone uniting themselves to a Non-Catholic at every mass, and therefore becoming Non-Catholic's themselves?

Or do they think that there must have been some small remnant who did not accept each of the various antipopes?


I also have a question for John. Do you think a Catholic would be permitted to go a mass where the priest mentioned, I don't know say Aleister Crowley or some other famous satanist, in the una cum? If you say that a Catholic could not attend this mass is there a specific law which would prohibit him from doing so?


Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:30 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
brogan wrote:
When everyone believed "Felix V" to be pope from 1439 to 1449 did the church cease to exist becuase of everyone uniting themselves to a Non-Catholic at every mass, and therefore becoming Non-Catholic's themselves?


They would say, and have said, quite rightly, that during (for example) the Great Western Schism the claimants were all orthodox men, whereas during this crisis the Roman claimants have been unorthodox. This, they maintain (incorrectly), destroys any value in the parallel. Their problem is to define what it actually is which puts such a Mass beyond the pale. Nobody has yet, in my opinion, done so. Which would explain why this was considered a non-problem by all traditional Catholics, including sedevacantists - excepting a few Guerardians - for decades. In other words, nobody noticed the problem, which makes it unlikely it really exists. This is not a proof - it's just an observation which correctly contextualises all attempted proofs on either side.

brogan wrote:
I also have a question for John. Do you think a Catholic would be permitted to go a mass where the priest mentioned, I don't know say Aleister Crowley or some other famous satanist, in the una cum? If you say that a Catholic could not attend this mass is there a specific law which would prohibit him from doing so?


I would say that there is no known law against attending such a Mass, per se, but that the insertion of such a name would be clear evidence of heterodoxy in the minister, thus outlawing the Mass on the grounds of communicatio in sacris contrary to Canon 1258. In other words, the minister is evidently a non-Catholic and therefore one has to avoid common worship with him.

The promoters of the anti-una-cum novelty would perhaps argue (although I know most do not so argue) that all priests who insert the name of the heterodox claimant Joseph Ratzinger, "Benedict XVI," are therefore non-Catholics themselves. I analysed this proposition in my article on this whole question. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/una_cum.html

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:51 pm
Profile E-mail
New post sede religious orders & una cum discussion
Since the canon is done in silence, one wouldn't know who the priest inserts there, or omits. The only way one would know would be to ask the priest/celebrant who he prays for in the canon.

Pat Beck


Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:26 pm

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post sede religious orders & una cum discussion
I must admit that I see this as a non-issue: if anyone here does not care to assist at an Una-cum Mass, then don't. However, he cannot then condemn any other Catholic who sees the issue differently from himself. And vice-versa.

I will repeat what I have said many times, and what I try to live by: none of us here; I repeat: NONE OF US HERE, have either the competence nor the authority to bind any other Catholic to our ways of seeing these issues.

We all must exercise the Charity needed to understand that we are ALL simply Catholics, trying to find our ways through this terrible morass of the modern, pre-Anti-Christ world.

Since we have no effective, true hierarchy, we must all find our own ways, as best we can, with the help of God.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:44 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
John Lane wrote:
They would say, and have said, quite rightly, that during (for example) the Great Western Schism the claimants were all orthodox men, whereas during this crisis the Roman claimants have been unorthodox. This, they maintain (incorrectly), destroys any value in the parallel. Their problem is to define what it actually is which puts such a Mass beyond the pale. Nobody has yet, in my opinion, done so.


The reason I mentioned "Felix V" though was becuase he was excomunicated at the Council of Florence by Pope Eugene IV.
Of course I'm not sure if I'm correct about that.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia
Quote:
Amadeus had been in close relations with the schismatic council of Basle; and was elected pope, 30 October, 1439, by the electoral college of that council, including one cardinal (d'Allamand of Aries), eleven bishops, seven abbots, five theologians, and nine canonists. After long negotiations with a deputation from the council, Amadeus acquiesced in the election, 5 Feb., 1440, completely renouncing at the same time all further participation in the government of his duchy. Ambition and a certain fantastic turn of character induced him to take this step. He took the name of Felix V, and was solemnly consecrated and crowned by the Cardinal d'Allamand, 24 July, 1440. Eugene IV had already excommunicated him, 23 March, at the council of Florence. Until 1442, the famous Aeneas Sylvinus Piccolomini, later Pius II, was the antipope's secretary.


Would Bellarmine deny this excomunication? (And by that I mean, is the Catholic Encyclopedia wrong again?) Or am I reading it wrong and it was Cardinal d'Allamand who was excommunicated at Florence?

If it is correct that Amedeus (Felix V) was excommunicated by the pope before his supposed election then denying the parallel to the present day is just plain intellectual dishonesty.

John Lane wrote:

I would say that there is no known law against attending such a Mass, per se, but that the insertion of such a name would be clear evidence of heterodoxy in the minister, thus outlawing the Mass on the grounds of communicatio in sacris contrary to Canon 1258. In other words, the minister is evidently a non-Catholic and therefore one has to avoid common worship with him.


What about those who mention the other fake Popes like "Pope Micheal" or Pius XIII or any of those types. Do you believe a Catholic could assist at such a mass? What I mean to say is it seems any defense of attending a mass where one mentions Benedict XVI would also be a defense of attending a mass "una cum" Gregory XVII and the Palmarian Catholic Church.

As you can probably see I have no idea what to think on this issue.


Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:37 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post 
I have some questions regarding, the <una cum>' and what is really intended?

Does it mean that I believe :

ALL that the other believes, A=C, or
Only some of what the other believes, A is not entirely equal to C?

Or does it mean:

I am offering this prayer 'una cum' C and D and E and anyone else with whom I want to offer up this prayer as in Assisi?


Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:43 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
csibf wrote:
I have some questions regarding, the <una cum>' and what is really intended?


In the context it means "and also for" as in "We offer this Mass for the Church and also for her chief members, the pope, bishop, etc."

I think all are clear on this now. Even Bp. Sanborn, the original publisher of the notion that "una cum" means "offer together with" the pope etc., now accepts that this is an incorrect understanding.

It is certainly by implication also a declaration that one acknowledges the named parties as one's fellow members of the Church, and that they hold the offices they claim. It is also true that all fellow members of the Church offer the Mass (every Mass) together with us, but this is not the meaning of the clause. When a (real) pope offers Mass he says in this place, "una cum MYSELF". That is, "also for me." If the prayer meant that we offer the Mass "together with" whomever is named, then the pope would be saying, "We offer this Mass for the Church IN UNION WITH myself." Such an absurdity is indeed worthy of the creators of the new liturgy, but not of the true and ancient one.

And of course, this is why, at bottom, nobody noticed a problem until the 1990s, and even then, only a small minority adopted the erroneous position.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:22 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
brogan wrote:
If it is correct that Amedeus (Felix V) was excommunicated by the pope before his supposed election then denying the parallel to the present day is just plain intellectual dishonesty.


Excommunication is not the issue, for anti-una-cumists or for the rest of us.


brogan wrote:
What about those who mention the other fake Popes like "Pope Micheal" or Pius XIII or any of those types. Do you believe a Catholic could assist at such a mass? What I mean to say is it seems any defense of attending a mass where one mentions Benedict XVI would also be a defense of attending a mass "una cum" Gregory XVII and the Palmarian Catholic Church.

As you can probably see I have no idea what to think on this issue.


Yes. :)

Well, there is a difference between failing to cut off communion with the claimant accepted by almost all Catholics, and in running a little home-election. I would call the difference, "schism." But whether we go that far or not, it is a very big difference, isn't it?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:25 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post True meaning of the phrase "una cum" as used in th
John Lane wrote:
csibf wrote:
I have some questions regarding, the <una cum>' and what is really intended?

In the context it means "and also for" as in "We offer this Mass for the Church and also for her chief members, the pope, bishop, etc."

According to my references, in this context it also means, "as well as"...but this is equivalent to your meaning of "and also for", since the entire passage says something like, "We pray for....etc.,...as well as...", it is not necessary to repeat the "for" except, perhaps for emphasis.

John Lane wrote:
When a (real) pope offers Mass he says in this place, "una cum MYSELF". That is, "also for me." If the prayer meant that we offer the Mass "together with" whomever is named, then the pope would be saying, "We offer this Mass for the Church IN UNION WITH myself." Such an absurdity is indeed worthy of the creators of the new liturgy, but not of the true and ancient one.

Yet, in modern English, the phrase "...together with..." ALSO means things such as, "...in addition to...", or "...also including..." etc. As in, say, "James bought two shirts, together with two hamburgers.", which is somewhat strange, but still correctly formed English.

As I said, to me this is a non-issue. It is simply a matter of misunderstanding what is actually being said. A matter of semantics.

John Lane wrote:
And of course, this is why, at bottom, nobody noticed a problem until the 1990s, and even then, only a small minority adopted the erroneous position.

As with so much of the modern nit-picking that divides good Catholics.

Now...I will most certainly admit that some of the translations of this passage as shown in various missals render this as "...in union with...", but considering the times during which these translations were published, we may find that the issue of being in union with the Pope was of vital importance. If one peruses the rest of the missal(s) in question, other instances of carefully chosen meanings that would, in addition, enhance the Catholic viewpoint on certain controverted issues would be easily discovered.

I think it is another instance of Satan using the good intentions of certain good people to achieve bad ends....in the same manner he used our virtue of obedience against us, and still uses it today to keep many good Catholics within the Novus Ordo.

Pity the many poor Jesuits who suffered so greatly at the changes in the Church, but were bound by their vow of unquestioning obedience, which they had practiced for many years. How difficult would it be for any of them to go against that vow!

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:39 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post 
John, Ken

Quote:
In the context it means "and also for" as in "We offer this Mass for the Church and also for her chief members, the pope, bishop, etc.";

in this context it also means, "as well as"


This certainly sounds a lot better than "in union with"


Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:07 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
csibf wrote:
This certainly sounds a lot better than "in union with"


I'm not sure it would make any difference to the question of whether one could lawfully assist at such a Mass even if the prayer really was a prayer of common oblation with whomever is named. The question has always been treated as depending upon the status of the celebrant. That is, if he is a Catholic, his Mass is a "Catholic Mass" and one can assist - all other things being equal. If he isn't a Catholic one must stay away. It's a very simple matter.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post 
"Didn't want to start a new topic with this (below)... but felt this might be an appropriate thread to post this disturbing email into, which I recently received from Fr. Cekada's group. I am not one to be political about warring factions within the traditionalist movement(s)... don't have the stomach for it.. I am simply very concerned about the demeanor displayed in this strange message, which appears to be legitimately forwarded from the St. Gertrude the Great folks under Fr. Cekada's signature. As I read it, words like "isolated", "cynical", "rageful", "desperate" come to mind. We must pray for this dear priest.... The email was advertising SGG's first Annual Jog-a-Thon to raise funds...

Here is the email I received... The Subject line read: "The anti-Fr. Cekada Club"...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This club has lots?of members, and you?probably have friends or relatives who belong: SSPX-ers, SSPV-ers, Indult-goers, Feeneyites, Remnant/CFN fans, Angelqueen-ers, Knights of Malta, Home-Aloners, Opinionists, and anyone even remotely connected with Christopher (?the Windbag?) Ferrara.
?
Great! Send 'em this form. Get ?em to sponsor laps by Fr. Cekada in our upcoming Jog-a-thon. This group is the perfect market.


Here's why: The more they pledge per lap, the more laps I?ll want to jog. The more laps I jog, the higher my heart rate. The higher my heart rate, well? the closer they may figure I?ll get to a heart attack! Bring ?em on!


Or? sponsor me yourself, for a more edifying reason ? to support our liturgical program, Internet sermon site, school, youth activities and all the rest.?


But in either case, pass along this e-mail to your traditional Catholic friends.


Wishing you all (club members or not!) a blessed Holy Week and Easter,


In Xto,


Fr. Cekada"

Rev. Anthony Cekada [frcekada@sgg.org].. this is the "Reply" email address that was indicated from the sender...

Pax Christi,

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:56 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
I think his email is just good fun. It's true that those people he mentioned really don't like him. I don't think theres anything wrong with him making light of the situation.

I know I'd pay money to have some of the angelqueeners pass out from heat exhaustion. Although I think many of them already have.


Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:10 pm
Profile E-mail
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 2 guests


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.