It is currently Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:10 am




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

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
brogan wrote:
Were you ever to become a Priest, could you utter the words "una cum (some imposter)". Would you actually stand their in Persona Christi and utter what you know to be false? Wouldn't this be a type of blasphemy?


As you are undoubtedly in communion with the priest who is clearly in communion with a man you take to be a public heretic, what is the difference between his words and your actions which unite you with them?

I could not utter such words, nor assist those who do - as I am, at that most sublime of all moments, in a rather intimate communion with the sacrificing priest.

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?

Quote:
I suppose it may have been easier to have just posted a question. What I would like to know is what religious orders or priestly societies do you know of that do not currently require their Priests to utter "una cum Benedict XVI".


MHT will not even accept you as a seminarian if (they know) you are una cum. I was in Brooksville, FL, this past weekend, and the new seminary building is coming along very well - it is going to be beautiful. I am not certain, but I cannot see CMRI doing so, either.

As for religious houses, I believe the Benedictines in France are non-una cum.

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


Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:20 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:24 am
Posts: 15
Location: MidWest Ozark Region
New post 
Eamon,
Very well stated. Exactly what I would have liked to have posted, had I the talent of articulating my thoughts.

_________________
L.Francis


Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:39 am
Profile

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

For instance suppose I find myself assisting at a Mass which the priest is offering for the intention that a certain country may win a given war, whereas I earnestly believe that the country in question is in the wrong. Must I abstain from assisting at his Mass?

I acknowledge that in the early centuries the "una cum" or equivalent clauses were read aloud at least in the East so that the faithful could know whether the priest was a Catholic. But they based that judgment on whether he was naming persons who had been condemned by the Church as heretics or schismatics. A priest who knowingly names condemned heretics is himself outside the Church. That is not the situation today. We are facing something more complicated: men who are dangerous heretics pretending to be popes and bishops of the catholic Church but who have not been directly condemned.

That imposes on us a double duty of prudence: rejecting and avoiding the enemy while refusing to treat his status as if it were what it would be if the Church had directly condemned him. It isn't. And it makes a big difference as to the status of those who have not yet fully understood the present state of the Church.

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


Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:03 am
Profile

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

I thank you for putting that up, although it is a bit different than the usual post in its format (being photos).

I cannot read and/or respond (at length) to it at present, but I will do so in future.

As for the una cum phrase, Pope Benedict XIV:

"This commemoration is the highest and most noteworthy manifestation of communion."

Sede-vacantists justify what they do based upon the recognition of a rather momentous truth in the order of fact, although such reality has not been recognized in the order of law. Now, in the most central action of our Faith - where the "rubber meets the road" - we are to reverse our justification, claiming that the order of law allows us to do what the order of fact makes reprehensible to us?

Regarding Benedict: Is he, or is he not, a public heretic/apostate?

Regarding the Te igitur: Is this prayer (including the una cum phrase), or is it not, "the highest and most noteworthy manifestation of communion" with those named therein?

Regarding the priest who inserts Benedict's name into the Te igitur: Is he, or is he not, in communion with Benedict?

Regarding those who assist at Mass: Are we, or are we not, in communion with the sacrificing priest?

Receiving the Sacraments (as the Dimond's mention) and assisting at Mass are two different things. Their first point has no citations whatsoever, and is talking about praying for people (versus expressing our being in communion with them) - an erroneous, and commonly so, starting point in this discussion.

I look forward to the discussion of this matter, wishing all God speed.

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


Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:19 pm
Profile E-mail

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

May I butt in here to try to pin down exactly the point of doubt or disagreement?

Yes, definitely to name a pope or bishop in the Te Igitur is to express communion with him.

Yes, as a general rule, with certain controverted exceptions, if one assists at a priest's mass one is expressing communion with that priest.

But you are, if I understand you, assuming that if A is in communion with B and B is in communion with C, it follows that A is in communion with C.

I submit that this is in fact not necessarily so.

I believe I can prove that it is not so, but for the time being I prefer to invite you to state what proof you can offer that it is so.

If I am right that it is not so, your particular difficulty seems to melt away. Joe Sedevac believes that Fr Trad is a Catholic, so he is in communion with him. Fr Trad believes that Benedict XVI is pope, so he is in communion with him. Joe Sedevac does not believe that Benedict XVI is pope so he is not in communion with him. Where is the impossibility in this as long as the Church has not directly pronounced?

I can see a man who can see a man I cannot see. I can know a man who knows a man I do not know. I can love a man who loves a man I hate. Why can I not be in communion with a man who is in communion with a man whose communion I refuse as long as his status as a Catholic or a non-Catholic is not directly decided by the Church and must be judged by fallible mortals such as we all are?

In Our Lord and Our Lady,

John


Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:22 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Daly wrote:
May I butt in here to try to pin down exactly the point of doubt or disagreement?


Most certainly, my friend.

Quote:
But you are, if I understand you, assuming that if A is in communion with B and B is in communion with C, it follows that A is in communion with C.


I am indeed, as it seems pretty logical to do so. If not, what does communion, which bond is closer than that of blood, mean?

Quote:
Joe Sedevac believes that Fr Trad is a Catholic, so he is in communion with him. Fr Trad believes that Benedict XVI is pope, so he is in communion with him. Joe Sedevac does not believe that Benedict XVI is pope so he is not in communion with him. Where is the impossibility in this as long as the Church has not directly pronounced?


Whilst you are expressing rather concretely your own communion with the priest, he is busy expressing his own communion with you and with Benedict in "the highest and most noteworthy manifestation" possible. Jo Sedevac has no control over the objective fact that the Mass he can assist at is offered in union with the public heretic he believes is the supreme visible enemy of Holy Church and shuns at all costs - all he can control is whether or not he will co-offer such a Mass.

Quote:
Why can I not be in communion with a man who is in communion with a man whose communion I refuse as long as his status as a Catholic or a non-Catholic is not directly decided by the Church and must be judged by fallible mortals such as we all are?


If Benedict was in the sanctuary, would you assist at that Mass? If not, why not? If the "canonical status" of the SSPX undergoes a change in the future, will you alter your practice? If so, why? Is an Indult, then, included in the list of acceptable places to go? If not - aside from the obvious reasons we all know - why not?

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


Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:04 pm
Profile E-mail

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

First a brief clarification: I am looking at this issue in the abstract and without any personal preference or prejudice as I happen to live seven or eight minutes from a sedevacantist chapel where I go to Mass every day. Since recognising the vacancy of the Holy See in early 1983, and bending over backwards to take account of special occasions like friends' weddings, there have been at most two or three occasions when I have even been in the same building as an una cum Mass.

I trust you won't be offended if I point out that what I am asking you to apply to this issue is rigorous logic, and I don't think you're really doing that. I also think that if you start doing so, your house of cards is going to collapse.

Let's look again at my attempt to hit the nail on the head:

Quote:
JD: But you are, if I understand you, assuming that if A is in communion with B and B is in communion with C, it follows that A is in communion with C


To this you reply:

Quote:
ES: I am indeed, as it seems pretty logical to do so. If not, what does communion, which bond is closer than that of blood, mean?


Sorry, Eamon. That is impressionistic thinking, not logic. Try re-shaping it as a syllogism and you'll see that there is nothing there. The point is not how close the relationship of ecclesiastical communion is but how it functions. I have already pointed out the analogies of knowledge, sight and love, all of which are close, but all of which refuse to co-operate with a mathematical-type assumption that as A relates to B and B relates to C so A must relate to C. Even your selected comparison of blood relationship doesn't work very well: my first cousin's first cousin is not necessarily my first cousin, and my grandmother's grandmother is never my grandmother.

Ecclesiastical communion is in fact the outward, juridical incarnation of the unity of faith which unites all of those who believe Christ’s revelation as entrusted to His Church. But being outward and juridical it sometimes fails to correspond perfectly with the spiritual reality it reflects. Saint Joan of Arc was condemned by legitimate ecclesiastical authority as a heretic, but she wasn’t one. Bishop de Dominis in the early seventeenth century was believed to be a Catholic prelate, but it was discovered after his death that he hadn’t been one: he was a heretic.

I am in communion with those whom I believe to be Catholics. But my judgment of who is or isn’t a Catholic is fallible and non-authoritative. That is why someone I am certain is a Catholic may disagree with me about whether some third person is or isn’t a Catholic. If we had functioning ecclesiastical authority, this would simplify the situation enormously, but we haven’t.

Many Catholics are…please forgive me for being frank, and understand that present company is excepted…are ignorant and stupid. That doesn’t stop them from being Catholics. They can’t even see that Benedict XVI is a non-member and therefore non-head of the Catholic Church. But that failure does not by any law of God or men put them outside the Church and require me to sever communion with them.

To sever communion on private authority can only ever be a last resort: the proofs must be utterly clear.

For all these reasons I remain decidedly in communion with many priests who mistakenly mention Benedict XVI as pope in their Mass. I.e. I recognise them as my fellow-Catholics.

Perhaps there are good reasons for avoiding the Masses in which they express their exceedingly grave error. But the claim that as they are in communion with Benedict I cannot be in communion with them without being myself in communion with Benedict doesn’t seem to me to be one of them.

Back to you.

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

John


Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:35 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:24 am
Posts: 15
Location: MidWest Ozark Region
New post 
Gentlemen,

I hope you will either forgive my lack of inteligence and eloquence or just dismiss it.

What exactly is it that parishoners do when they assist at Holy Mass? Do they not join their prayers with the priest's? If that is infact what they do, then would they not ALSO be praying una cum?
Is the Una Cum in the Offering? if it is, do you not Offer the Sacrifice with the priest? Or is it that somehow one can go to the Mass yet be apart from it, partaking only in the Consuming?
What goodness comes from the consuming if you have not offered to God the sacrifice that is consumed? Thank you for your patience.

_________________
L.Francis


Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:47 pm
Profile

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

It seems to me that the answers to several of your questions have been given already. Are you sure you have read the preceding posts?

We are precisely discussing whether it is certain and necessary that the faithful at Mass join their intentions and prayers with every word said by the priest. The answer seems to be "No".

Are we agreed that una cum Masses are valid sacrifices? If so, they are offered to God by the Catholic Church, for otherwise they would be invalid. Now if the Church can offer to God una cum Masses while "holding her nose" at the mention of the unholy name of Benedict, why cannot the faithful - for a proportionately grave reason - do the same? That is the question we are discussing.

I don't claim to know for sure what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure it isn't as obvious as you think it is!

John

PS The una cum priest would normally have what is technically called a conflict of intention. He has the intention to offer Mass for, with and in the Catholic Church founded by Christ, and he has the intention to offer Mass for, with and in the Church of which Benedict XVI is head. He is unaware of the conflict because he thinks the two churches are the same. We know they're not. I suggest that the normal principles governing conflict of intention apply.


Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:17 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post The Dimonds' Book
Just an afterthought on a typographical note. I have been looking at the photocopies from the Dimonds' book, posted by Brogan, and I notice that the right hand margin is extremely wavy. Is there any chance that the authors are confused about how to achieve justification? :wink:

JD


Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:22 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Daly wrote:
I am looking at this issue in the abstract and without any personal preference or prejudice as I happen to live seven or eight minutes from a sedevacantist chapel where I go to Mass every day. Since recognising the vacancy of the Holy See in early 1983, and bending over backwards to take account of special occasions like friends' weddings, there have been at most two or three occasions when I have even been in the same building as an una cum Mass.


I appreciate the clarification, John. My own situation: I am in NE FL, 30 miles from the Indult, 80 miles from the closest SSPX, and 180 or more from the closest non-una cum - and I have no car at present (I demolished it in a wreck last Pentecost Sunday, on my way back from Mass on the other side of the state).

Quote:
I trust you won't be offended if I point out that what I am asking you to apply to this issue is rigorous logic, and I don't think you're really doing that. I also think that if you start doing so, your house of cards is going to collapse.


I am not offended in the least, my friend. The object is to help (and be helped by) those we "meet" on-line, and elsewhere, discover the right way to think and to act in these dangerous days.

Quote:
Even your selected comparison of blood relationship doesn't work very well: my first cousin's first cousin is not necessarily my first cousin, and my grandmother's grandmother is never my grandmother.


All I stated, John, was that supernatural bonds are closer than natural ones - which is a fact. Any specific analogy which is somehow related to that fact comes from your own mind.

Quote:
I am in communion with those whom I believe to be Catholics. But my judgment of who is or isn’t a Catholic is fallible and non-authoritative. That is why someone I am certain is a Catholic may disagree with me about whether some third person is or isn’t a Catholic. If we had functioning ecclesiastical authority, this would simplify the situation enormously, but we haven’t.


Agreed.

Quote:
For all these reasons I remain decidedly in communion with many priests who mistakenly mention Benedict XVI as pope in their Mass. I.e. I recognise them as my fellow-Catholics.


Agreed.

Quote:
Perhaps there are good reasons for avoiding the Masses in which they express their exceedingly grave error.


Indeed there are.

Quote:
But the claim that as they are in communion with Benedict I cannot be in communion with them without being myself in communion with Benedict doesn’t seem to me to be one of them.


I believe they are Catholics who are grievously mistaken about a rather serious matter. Fair enough. However, that does not mean I will join them in their error (when, by God's grace, I know better), within the context of the most sublime act on earth, wherein their error of fact is demonstrated in a rather concrete manner - and where my union with them (and the erroneously offered sacrifice) is also rather concrete. They may not know better, but I (by the grace of God) do.

I genuinely would like to know: If Benedict (and/or the 'local ordinary') was in the sanctuary, how many advocates of assisting at these Masses would assist at such a Mass? If not, why not? It is just the honest mistake of another man, from which we can just internally disassociate ourselves, is it not? Imo, none would do so, but I believe such a change in practice would be inconsistent with their present principles. The same may be said for making a change in practice should the SSPX be "regularized" by the Vatican - many sedes would, imo, alter their practice, but inconsistently so.

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


Last edited by Eamon Shea on Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:27 pm
Profile E-mail

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

While I agree that the answer to these questions is certainly not obvious, I was wondering what you think the reality is of a mass being offered in communion with a heretic. Is this mass actually licit, or would it be rendered illicit by the "una cum," validity being assumed. Does the conflict of intention nullify whatever results are concluded from the fact that the mass is being offered una cum?

Tommy


Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:44 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Daly wrote:
...The una cum priest would normally have what is technically called a conflict of intention. He has the intention to offer Mass for, with and in the Catholic Church founded by Christ, and he has the intention to offer Mass for, with and in the Church of which Benedict XVI is head. He is unaware of the conflict because he thinks the two churches are the same. We know they're not...


John, one of the glaring inconsistencies of the SSPX is that their highest ranking members have said repeatedly that they do, in fact, understand there are two relgions involved here - two Churches. Bp. Williamson has said as much on several occasions in recent months.

Just as their position is objectively schismatic (looked at from either "side"), it would seem the same may be said about their worship.

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


Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:55 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
Just as their position is objectively schismatic (looked at from either "side"), it would seem the same may be said about their worship.


Dear Eamon,

I don't know what the word "objectively" is doing there in front of "schismatic," but I presume you are against schism. In which case, you might with profit reflect on the fact that to refuse communion with Catholics is one way of committing the crime of schism.

I will leave it to Mr. Daly to remind you that "Indeed there are" won't suffice as a reason to overturn thirty years of sedevacantist tradition and thus to deprive half the world's sedevacantists of regular sacraments.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:47 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
I don't know what the word "objectively" is doing there in front of "schismatic," but I presume you are against schism. In which case, you might with profit reflect on the fact that to refuse communion with Catholics is one way of committing the crime of schism.


Thank you, John. You are right. Their "official position" is just plain schismatic.

Quote:
I will leave it to Mr. Daly to remind you that "Indeed there are" won't suffice as a reason to overturn thirty years of sedevacantist tradition and thus to deprive half the world's sedevacantists of regular sacraments.


You have a rather funny way of "leaving" it to Mr. Daly, John. :wink:

I was unaware that "sedevacantist tradition" (existed or) had an established set of rules for overturning anything, nor that 30 years amounts to a hill of beans. As far as I can tell, over the decades there have been some ideas that have been changed, and some practices that have been altered, simply due to the fact that time has provided more of an opportunity to study, reflect, and pray about the right course in these difficult days.

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


Sat Jun 03, 2006 6:41 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post 
Eamon,

John Lane is not just leaving it to John Daly, he has dealt with the issue extensively. in his article written in 2002. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/una_cum.html

As of yet, I have not found anyone on a point by point basis challenge John's article. For myself, I have read the article at least 5 or more times, as the issue is very complex. Each point needs to be grasped, I would urge you to re-read the article and let us know what point (s) you disagree with.

I will bring up another point to this discussion that has not been dealt with anywhere in the published world at least. Most sedevacantists hold the date of the beginning of sedevacante to have begun at death of Pius XII in 1958.

Now, to follow the logic, if the very mentioning of the name of John XXIII or Paul VI in the Canon, by that very fact had caused the mass to be schismatic, then there would not have been a single Mass that was pleasing to God for about 15 years of Church history. The first sedevacantists came around in about 1972-1973 to the best of my knowledge, so every Mass in the world used the name of John XXIII and Paul VI.

Granted, no one knew any better, but that is beside the point, we are dealing here with something objective, not subjective. If the very naming of the false claimant in the Canon causes the Mass to be schismatic, then all Masses were then schismatic until Paul VI"s name was no longer used by the early sedevacantists, and then we had a few licit masses again at least.

Let me be clear here, do you hold that all of the Masses said una cum during this time with John XIII and Paul VI, meaning every Catholic Mass in the world was not heard by God as they were all schismatic? Do you also hold that God would allow the Church to exist without a single licit Mass for over a decade?

Yours in JMJ,

Mike


Sat Jun 03, 2006 7:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
Mike wrote:
John Lane is not just leaving it to John Daly, he has dealt with the issue extensively. in his article written in 2002. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/una_cum.html


I have read his article, and meant no disrespect in my remarks. However, considering he said the very thing he was claiming he would leave for Mr. Daly to say, my point (offered more in jest than anything else) stands.

As for the rest, I intend to re-read the article (and have already read it several times).

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


Sat Jun 03, 2006 7:38 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post 
Mike wrote:
Let me be clear here, do you hold that all of the Masses said una cum during this time with John XIII and Paul VI, meaning every Catholic Mass in the world was not heard by God as they were all schismatic? Do you also hold that God would allow the Church to exist without a single licit Mass for over a decade?


Mike,

I would suggest that there were indeed many masses continuing to be said throughout the world according to the traditional rite, even after the council. I do not know if the "una cum" masses are illicit, but I think there is an argument to be made that they are.

Tommy


Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:43 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
Thank you, John. You are right. Their "official position" is just plain schismatic.


No, it isn't, as all know, which is why even Bishop Sanborn tacks that word "objectively" on the front, so as to avoid accusing them of being schismatic. Bishop Sanborn is too intelligent and honest to do so. But the word "objectively" won't solve the problem, which is that "schism" for one raised in the unity of the Church is either true schism or nothing but a mistake. The same is true, mutatis mutandis, of heresy. So please, Eamon, before you leap into these complex and thorny matters, ensure that you understand the terminology that you are employing.

As one who has considerable access to SSPX priests I can inform you that they are fundamentally a lot less anti-sedevacantist than one might imagine who does not enjoy cordial relations with them; and further, that uncharitable or sharp polemics is the main cause of them having no interest in our position.

Eamon Shea wrote:
I was unaware that "sedevacantist tradition" (existed or) had an established set of rules for overturning anything, nor that 30 years amounts to a hill of beans. As far as I can tell, over the decades there have been some ideas that have been changed, and some practices that have been altered, simply due to the fact that time has provided more of an opportunity to study, reflect, and pray about the right course in these difficult days.


Eamon, your proposition is that from when the first declaration "sede vacante" was made in the early 1970s, until after the year 2000, the only men who thought that "una cum" Masses were "illicit" were Guerardians, and yet that was the true position. Further, that their reasoning, being based as it was on their faulty Guerardian philosophy, was wrong but their conclusion right. Further, that even though the "anti-una cum" position is still to this day virtually exclusively a Guerardian position, as far as clerics are concerned (and probably laymen also but it is harder to tell), it is the true home of "sedevacantists." Forgive me for finding that an exceedingly unlikely situation.

Yes, "sedevacantist tradition" exists insofar as the facts are as I have outlined, and yes, it amounts to a great deal, for it was the considered position of the "sedevacantist" heavyweights for a long time. You call that a "hill of beans" but you're on your own in doing so. You might also explain what you were thinking of when you stated, "some ideas that have been changed, and some practices that have been altered." What ideas and practices please? This is not a rhetorical question.

For those who want a brief overview of the Guerardian theory, also known as the Cassiciacum Thesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiciacum_Thesis

_________________
In Christ our King.


Last edited by Admin on Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:58 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Tommy Short wrote:
I do not know if the "una cum" masses are illicit, but I think there is an argument to be made that they are.


Dear Tommy,

The argument would be very simple if it could be made, because for something to be illicit it must contravene some law. This is axiomatic. And it is a principle of interpretation of the Canons that only a certain law obliges (canon 15).

So, which law prohibits the mention of a heretic in the Canon of Holy Mass, prior to any public judgement of his status?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:04 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post 
Interesting John. I concede that the issue here would be "prior to any public judgement." I have moral certitude that these conciliar "popes" are frauds and therefore I feel it incumbant to stay away from una cum masses. I believe I can find evidence from St. Thomas to Pope Benedict XIV that it is forbidden to mention heretics or schismatics, but I admit that it appears there was a public judgement against who these folks were beforehand. This being stated, would it not be illicit for one, who with ceritude, knows the heretic for what they are, and attends the una cum mass? On a side note, the evidence that JPII and his successor are indeed heretics would seem unarguable. Don't the laws of the church presume guilt until the contrary is proven? Isn't it the practice of the church to treat all those who publicly adhere to heresy as formal heretics in the external forum, whether they be morally guilty of there heresy? I do not know if any of this affects this particular discussion but I would be interested in your thoughts.

Would the same principle hold in regard to the new mass? Since the Church has not officially condemned it, we are free to accept it? It would seem to me that if you recognize this new church and its false popes as fraudulent, you would also need to avoid those masses said in communion with these same frauds. No?

Your friend in Christ,

Tommy


Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
No, it isn't, as all know,...


So, it is not schismatic to erect altar against altar, carrying out a world-wide apostolate, against the express wishes of the one you claim is the Vicar of Christ?

The main obstacle for the typical SSPX priest is, imo, his ecclesiology (his sacramental theology does not usually help, either). This does not shake my trust that the average SSPX priest is rather kind, intelligent, and charitable.

Quote:
Forgive me for finding that an exceedingly unlikely situation.


There is no need to forgive. Forgive me for placing little trust in how "likely" something would seem to the average man: how likely was it, in the eyes of practically every man on earth, that we would end up where we are? As for what is likely to come down the road in a short time, all bets are off as far as I am concerned.

Quote:
Yes, "sedevacantist tradition" exists insofar as the facts are as I have outlined, and yes, it amounts to a great deal, for it was the considered position of the "sedevacantist" heavyweights for a long time.


Sedevacantists are just Catholics, seeking out answers from Catholic tradition, and then living by them. As for ideas and practices changing, did the sedevacantists' camp just wake up in the early to mid-60's, proceeding with a tightly knit package and program for action? No, they gradually reasoned from: rotten fruit to rotten tree; rotten tree to rotten garden; rotten garden to rotten gardener; etc. You get the drift, and I apologize for the lackluster analogy. The point is that there have been changes in sedevacantists' understanding of the reality we face in these dark days (included among these realizations is the fact that the See is empty - as is to be expected, this took time). Do you disagree?

Quote:
You call that a "hill of beans" but you're on your own in doing so.


What I called a "hill of beans" is the ridiculously short span of 30 years - especially where actual tradition is concerned. Such a period is not even sufficient for custom. I have nothing but the greatest respect for the men who did things I would never have even thought of doing, being faithful to the grace of God in the Church's darkest hours. I thank God for them, as well as for the work men like yourself and Mr. Daly have done. That does not mean I have to ignore the fact that the process of figuring which way was up, and how to proceed, took time - and mistakes were made along the way (or have you, or Mr. Daly, always thought and acted as you do now?). When the mistakes were realized, these valiant men altered their practice - and I have personally benefited from their holy example.

My question (although in my post to Mr. Daly) about what men who assist at una cum Masses would do if Benedict was in the sanctuary was not rhetorical either. Would you assist at such a Mass? If not, why not?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Indult would be also be acceptable, would it not?

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


Last edited by Eamon Shea on Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:57 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
Mike wrote:
Do you also hold that God would allow the Church to exist without a single licit Mass for over a decade?


Mike,

I hold that men speculating about what God would and would not allow is unwise.

God speed on this Pentecost Sunday.

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


Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:48 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
My head was starting to hurt reading this thread but then I came upon this comment by John Daly and thought it was worth repeating:

"Just an afterthought on a typographical note. I have been looking at the photocopies from the Dimonds' book, posted by Brogan, and I notice that the right hand margin is extremely wavy. Is there any chance that the authors are confused about how to achieve justification?"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks John...it's been a rough day...I needed that. :)


Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:10 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post 
Quote:
I hold that men speculating about what God would and would not allow is unwise.


Eamon,

The implications of your position force you into this. Your position if I am understanding you right is that whenever the name of a post -V2 claimaint, John XXIII, Paul VI and so on are used in the Canon, then the Mass is by that fact schismatic. Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is my understanding of your position.

The entire Catholic world accepted the validity of John XXIII and Paul VI, there was no dissent, it was not until the early 1970's that sedevacantism began to take hold. The names of John XXIII and Paul VI were used universally.

Logically, then, if you believe that John XXIII and Paul VI were not popes, then you are then forced to hold that the Church went for over a decade without any licit Mass, they were all schismatic according to you.

The reason I posed the question, is that I believe your position is dangerous to the Faith. God has not abandoned His Church, not for a decade, not a year, not a day. The Eternal Sacrifice acceptable to God cannot cease for a time and then start again, the very idea is impious.

I realize that John Lane and John Daly are dealing with the actual error involved in your position, but I am dealing more with the implications of it. The other dangerous aspect of your position, is that there is a serious misunderstanding of the private judgment prior to the declaration of the Church and a public judgment of the Church. This also has consequences, look at Britons Catholic Library position, and the fruits of it. That is where this leads.

I wish you also a blessed Pentecost.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike


Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:22 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Tommy Short wrote:
Interesting John. I concede that the issue here would be "prior to any public judgement."


Dear Tommy,

Isn't the question of the public judgement the whole problem, however? Does anybody imagine that the SSPX would continue to include Ratzinger's name in the Canon if he had been excommunicated by authority? A public judgement would make the problem go away entirely, for the SSPX. The only people who would potentially continue to suffer would be those for whom public judgements are unnecessary or superfluous. In other words, those who condemn without cause.

Tommy Short wrote:
I have moral certitude that these conciliar "popes" are frauds and therefore I feel it incumbant to stay away from una cum masses.


I would be interested in your reason, Tommy. My immediate reaction is that you must be under the illusion that the "una cum" clause is something other than a prayer for the pope. The idea that it expresses the idea that the Mass is offered "in union with" the pope (or the heretic, in this case). But that idea has long been exploded and even Bishop Sanborn explicitly disavows it now.

No, guilt is not presumed. No, the Church does not automatically judge everybody guilty of heresy who publicly adheres to one. But even if she did, the cases against the Conciliar Pretenders is more complex than that, for they have with diabolical cunning carefully avoided clear statements of heresy as a rule, so that it is more difficult for the average Catholic to identify their lack of Faith.

It is not without significance that the most unqualified to pass judgement are as a rule the quickest to do so. That is not a comment on you, obviously, but it is a fruitful reflection.

Tommy Short wrote:
Would the same principle hold in regard to the new mass? Since the Church has not officially condemned it, we are free to accept it? It would seem to me that if you recognize this new church and its false popes as fraudulent, you would also need to avoid those masses said in communion with these same frauds. No?


The Masses are not said "in communion with" them. The Masses are said in communion with the Catholic Church. The fact that the priest is confused and thinks that the memebrs of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church are the same men who are presently destroying her, is not proof that he thinks that the V2 sect is the Church. This is abundantly clear from Archbishop Lefebvre's writings and speeches, in which he identifies the V2 sect as a false church.

Methinks you have bought this novelty that "communion" is a communicable disease. It isn't.

May our Blessed Redeemer fill you with the gifts of His Spirit this day and always.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:24 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
So, it is not schismatic to erect altar against altar, carrying out a world-wide apostolate, against the express wishes of the one you claim is the Vicar of Christ?


Altar against table.

As for schism, I do really think that it is schismatic to refuse communion with SSPX priests and faithful, if one recognises them as Catholics. Really. Because that's the definition of schism. Whereas setting up an altar and offering the Holy Sacrifice and confecting the sacraments for the faithful when the bishops and priests generally cease doing so is not only non-schismatic, it is duty.

Or do you think that all those non-sedevacantist trads who started off the resistance were "objectively schismatic" until they realised that there was a better solution to the crisis? And while we are at it, what does "objectively schismatic" mean? You didn't say.

Eamon Shea wrote:
The main obstacle for the typical SSPX priest is, imo, his ecclesiology (his sacramental theology does not usually help, either).


While you're working out what you meant by "objectively schismatic", ask yourself what this period of all the real Catholics being involved in "objective schism" implies for your ecclesiology. How many years was that? Five? Ten? Longer? Frankly, you don't appear to be in any position to be lecturing SSPX priests on ecclesiology.

Eamon Shea wrote:
Forgive me for placing little trust in how "likely" something would seem to the average man: how likely was it, in the eyes of practically every man on earth, that we would end up where we are? As for what is likely to come down the road in a short time, all bets are off as far as I am concerned.


My lack of clarity there. I din't mean that it was an unlikely event. I meant to highlight that you either trust those men or you don't. Or are you a Cassiciacum Thesis adherent? Is that what is behind this?

Eamon Shea wrote:
Sedevacantists are just Catholics, seeking out answers from Catholic tradition, and then living by them. As for ideas and practices changing, did the sedevacantists' camp just wake up in the early to mid-60's, proceeding with a tightly knit package and program for action? No, they gradually reasoned from: rotten fruit to rotten tree; rotten tree to rotten garden; rotten garden to rotten gardener; etc. You get the drift, and I apologize for the lackluster analogy. The point is that there have been changes in sedevacantists' understanding of the reality we face in these dark days (included among these realizations is the fact that the See is empty - as is to be expected, this took time). Do you disagree?


Yes, I do. The general reaction of traditional Catholics was immediately what it remained afterwards. The good priests just kept saying Mass, and the good faithful found their way to those Masses.

The theoretical solution to the mysteries of this crisis developed, true. But insofar as those theoretical developments affected actions, they appear to me to have been generally for the worse. Such as home papal elections and splintering off to start innumerable little groups issuing excommunications against others etc.

But you made a claim. What was in your mind when you wrote what you wrote? Can't you say? If not, why not?

Eamon Shea wrote:
What I called a "hill of beans" is the ridiculously short span of 30 years - especially where actual tradition is concerned.


Yes, well the last four years, or whatever it has been since a priest or two adopted the Guerardian position on "una cum" Masses, is of no consequence whatsover and can safely be ignored. Let's change the subject.

Eamon Shea wrote:
Such a period is not even sufficient for custom.


Actually, it has now been forty years that we traditional Catholics have been assisting at "una cum" Masses, so there is an interesting point. Forty years is sufficient for custom.

Eamon Shea wrote:
I have nothing but the greatest respect for the men who did things I would never have even thought of doing, being faithful to the grace of God in the Church's darkest hours. I thank God for them, as well as for the work men like yourself and Mr. Daly have done. That does not mean I have to ignore the fact that the process of figuring which way was up, and how to proceed, took time - and mistakes were made along the way (or have you, or Mr. Daly, always thought and acted as you do now?).


Yes, my position was always what it is, since I met Fr. Cummins and Mr. Patrick Omlor and got my head sorted out, back in 1988. That isn't to say it couldn't change. But it hasn't.

Eamon Shea wrote:
When the mistakes were realized, these valiant men altered their practice - and I have personally benefited from their holy example.


Please feel free to identify an example. I asked this before. What are these changes you mention?

Eamon Shea wrote:
My question (although in my post to Mr. Daly) about what men who assist at una cum Masses would do if Benedict was in the sanctuary was not rhetorical either. Would you assist at such a Mass? If not, why not?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Indult would be also be acceptable, would it not?


Benedict is not in the sanctuary and if he were, I would not assist at his "Mass," and that is completely beside the point here. The Indult involves an agreement that the New "Mass" is valid and doctrinally sound. That makes it totally different.

Why don't you answer my questions and stick with the point, Eamon?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Last edited by Admin on Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:54 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:

My question (although in my post to Mr. Daly) about what men who assist at una cum Masses would do if Benedict was in the sanctuary was not rhetorical either. Would you assist at such a Mass? If not, why not?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Indult would be also be acceptable, would it not?


Benedict is a non-Catholic. SSPX priests are Catholics. Of course I would not go to a mass in which he was the Celebrant.

If he was in mere attendence and it was publicized beforehand that he would be there I would not go just the same as I would not go if Tony Blair or some other non-Catholic was going to be there.


Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:18 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Eamon Shea wrote:
When the mistakes were realized, these valiant men altered their practice - and I have personally benefited from their holy example.


Please feel free to identify an example. I asked this before. What are these changes you mention?


Eastern rites. Many trads went to them initially, now those who originally sought refuge there, avoid them completely. Mr. Omlor is a perfect example. One of the reasons he moved his whole family half-way across the world was to get greater acces to them - and now he would not touch them.

How about every single priest, SSPX included, who is presently non-una cum? That is a rather momentous alteration in practice, no? God be praised for giving them the courage to make it.

As for the Benedict question - I was not asking about him being the celebrant, but in the sanctuary - whilst the celebrant professes his communion with him. As for the Indult, aside from the (rather theoretical) "agreement", is there no other objection? Is assistance at Eastern rites still acceptable, where informed sedevacantists are concerned?

It would seem that you only really advocate the SSPX Masses, which is rather odd, imo. If it is fine to go there, why not go to the others, too?

As for the rather out-of-left-field question on the guerardian thesis, I do not adhere to the thesis, although I think it makes some good points - as do those who oppose it. My hope is to be able to look more closely at the matter in the near future. As is plain from your own words in the rules, it is an open question.

Edit/Addendum: I will deal with the other points later today. May the Holy Ghost, through the intercession of Our Lady, descend upon each and all of us.

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


Last edited by Eamon Shea on Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:21 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
brogan wrote:
If he was in mere attendence and it was publicized beforehand that he would be there I would not go just the same as I would not go if Tony Blair or some other non-Catholic was going to be there.


brogan,

That would be (is?) an absurd practice. Non-Catholics are welcome to come to Mass, and Catholics should encourage their doing so.

People are accusing me of having strange ideas about communion?

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


Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:27 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
Eastern rites. Many trads went to them initially, now those who originally sought refuge there, avoid them completely. Mr. Omlor is a perfect example. One of the reasons he moved his whole family half-way across the world was to get greater acces to them - and now he would not touch them.


Well that's news to me. But it is quite wrong to say that Pat Omlor ceased attending Eastern Rite Masses for any reason other than the personal errors of the available minister, and later, the doubtful validity of the available minister. There was no change of principle on his part, just a change of circumstances.

What examples have you of "changes"? Changes dictated by circumstances are obviously not relevant. Or maybe that is all you had in mind, in which case your point is irrelevant to the topic. And does your case rest on the change of position of one man, no matter how venerable?

Eamon Shea wrote:
How about every single priest, SSPX included, who is presently non-una cum? That is a rather momentous alteration in practice, no?


Yes and no. There are numerous cases where it was not apparent that the change had even occurred. But let's talk about laymen. That is what we are, and our present discussion relates to something which will only arise for a layman. What are these changes you so boldly mentioned, but you are now so coy about?

Eamon Shea wrote:
As for the Benedict question - I was not asking about him being the celebrant, but in the sanctuary - whilst the celebrant professes his communion with him. As for the Indult, aside from the (rather theoretical) "agreement", is there no other objection? Is assistance at Eastern rites still acceptable, where informed sedevacantists are concerned?


The Eastern rites have other problems, including heterodoxy and invalidity, as you are no doubt aware. But if there was a certainly valid priest offering Mass, and he was giving no sermon, or if his sermon was pretty sure to be inoffensive, then yes, I would assist in the absence of an alternative. My position is that of all the sedevacantists and other traditional Catholics for thirty+ years, except for the Guerardians and sectarians.

But this is all rhetoric on your part, and is really just a way of avoiding the issue, which is that you wish to outlaw something and you cannot even name the law you think is being violated, let alone demonstrate that the (un-named) law is actually being violated. This debate essentially finished many posts ago.

Eamon Shea wrote:
It would seem that you only really advocate the SSPX Masses, which is rather odd, imo.


Eamon, this breezy nonchalance won't wash. I am not particularly concerned whether something seems odd to you. Nobody else is likely to be concerned about that either. If you wish to find out the truth, apply some logic to some principles and facts.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:27 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
As for schism, I do really think that it is schismatic to refuse communion with SSPX priests and faithful, if one recognises them as Catholics. Really. Because that's the definition of schism.


Thanks for pointing that out, because other than the SSPX's lip service during their Masses, they refuse all manner of communion with the men they claim are the authority in the Church - which attitude is, as you point out, schismatic.

Quote:
Whereas setting up an altar and offering the Holy Sacrifice and confecting the sacraments for the faithful when the bishops and priests generally cease doing so is not only non-schismatic, it is duty.


Even when you are expressly told to do otherwise by the Vicar of Christ? I thought you said "bishop" implied both the powers of the episcopacy and the office (or were you using the term as non-sedes would use it?).

Quote:
While you're working out what you meant by "objectively schismatic", ask yourself what this period of all the real Catholics being involved in "objective schism" implies for your ecclesiology. How many years was that? Five? Ten? Longer? Frankly, you don't appear to be in any position to be lecturing SSPX priests on ecclesiology.


While you are working out what "bishop" does and does not imply (or whether it is, in fact, correct to call a man without an office "bishop"), I shall take your kindly-offered advice.

Quote:
But you made a claim. What was in your mind when you wrote what you wrote? Can't you say? If not, why not?


vous wrote:
moi wrote:
What I called a "hill of beans" is the ridiculously short span of 30 years - especially where actual tradition is concerned.
Yes, well the last four years, or whatever it has been since a priest or two adopted the Guerardian position on "una cum" Masses, is of no consequence whatsover and can safely be ignored.


Who even brought it up, John?

Quote:
Let's change the subject.


You already did with the comment about a couple of priests' actions during "the last four years".

Quote:
Actually, it has now been forty years that we traditional Catholics have been assisting at "una cum" Masses, so there is an interesting point. Forty years is sufficient for custom.


So there have been sedes since 1966? I thought sedes have been around for 30+ years. You did not mention "traditional Catholic" tradition, but "sedevacantist tradition". Where does 40 come into the picture? Or are you deftly changing the subject mid-way through the exchange?

Quote:
Please feel free to identify an example. I asked this before. What are these changes you mention?


Already did, but got shot down about its being only one (but that same change in practice has also been made by many other laymen). Now, I am also accused of being "coy" about them, of a "breezy nonchalance", of wishing to "outlaw" something, "faux intellectualism", etc.

Quote:
Benedict is not in the sanctuary and if he were, I would not assist at his "Mass," and that is completely beside the point here.


No, it is not, and I think you know it is not. As for his not actually being the celebrant, I covered that last post.

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


Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:11 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out, because other than the SSPX's lip service during their Masses, they refuse all manner of communion with the men they claim are the authority in the Church - which attitude is, as you point out, schismatic.


Enough, Eamon. When you have a position worked out and you are prepared to enunciate it without this sharp "yes 'tis" rhetorical style, you are welcome to do so. But we're not turning this into Fisheaters, where you can engage into this kind of thing any day you like, on this exact subject, without sanctions.

The answer to your rhetoric is that the SSPX refuse all manner of communion with heretics whom they happen to think hold positions in the Church. That is not schism - it is the opposite. You're not examining causes - only accidental similarities. But your need to keep taking this off subject is a blatant case of "I can't say why this is illicit because I can't find the law it contravenes."

Eamon Shea wrote:
Quote:
Please feel free to identify an example. I asked this before. What are these changes you mention?


Already did, but got shot down about its being only one (but that same change in practice has also been made by many other laymen).


Eamon, this is all tangled up. I stated that there was a "tradition" of sedevacantists going to "una cum" Masses. In response you made the following statement: "As far as I can tell, over the decades there have been some ideas that have been changed, and some practices that have been altered, simply due to the fact that time has provided more of an opportunity to study, reflect, and pray about the right course in these difficult days."

It does not assist your argument to point out that one, twenty, or even a hundred laymen changed positions on the "una cum" Mass. Because that is the one change we are agreed has happened, and which is the object of controversy. You are so confused about this you are now accusing me of denying that certain people have changed position at all, which is actually pretty funny when you think about it. So is it my position that all may go to the "una cum" Mass and nobody disagrees? :)

You wrote something, perhaps without serious thought, which you cannot back up. There have not been even a few significant changes of principle such as you imply. The "una cum" change, which was a change of principle, was in that sense highly unusual. And it was made by a small minority of laymen. And it was a Guerardian idea and still largely is, especially when you look at the clergy who agree with this position - they are virtually all Guerardians.

No, that does not make it wrong. It just makes it Guerardian. Your position is that they were right from the late 'seventies when Bishop Guerard first came up with this idea, until early into the new century when a few non-Guerardians adopted the idea.

My point, which you seem to have missed, is merely that even if it is completely obvious to you that a sedevacantist has no business at an "una cum" Mass, the sedevacantists didn't notice for thirty years. These men engaged in "study, reflection, and prayer," too. So come down off your youthful mountain and join the rest of us down here on the ground.

Now, please deal with the principles at issue and leave one particular individual out of it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:00 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
As for changing ideas, ... , the "Brussels Syllabus" comes to mind.

The most widely-known non-guerardian, sedevacantist clerics in the English-speaking world agree that one should not go to an una-cum Mass. Bp. Dolan, Fr. Cekada, Fr. Stepanich, Fr. Vaillancourt, just to name four off the top of my head.

As for the rest, I have to start making my way down the mountain. I shall get back to you when I have reached solid ground.

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


Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:41 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
As for changing ideas, ... , the "Brussels Syllabus" comes to mind.


So your best effort to back up your general statement that various changes of principle occurred, is to cite the case of two laymen? I rest my case.

Eamon Shea wrote:
The most widely-known non-guerardian, sedevacantist clerics in the English-speaking world agree that one should not go to an una-cum Mass. Bp. Dolan, Fr. Cekada, Fr. Stepanich, Fr. Vaillancourt, just to name four off the top of my head.


When did Fr. Stepanich change positions? When did Fr. Cekada or Bishop Dolan announce this position? Yes, I know about Fr. Vaillancourt.

The fact that you think these four constitute "the most widely-known non-guerardian, sedevacantist clerics in the English-speaking world," only demonstrates that you have some more descending to do from that rarified atmosphere.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
brogan,

That would be (is?) an absurd practice. Non-Catholics are welcome to come to Mass, and Catholics should encourage their doing so.

People are accusing me of having strange ideas about communion?


I was talking about the case where a non-Catholic public figure would be given Communion at the mass.

Image


Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:55 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
So your best effort to back up your general statement that various changes of principle occurred, is to cite the case of two laymen? I rest my case.


You were the one who indicated we should be more focussed on laymen in this exchange, and now doing so is insufficient? Who could possibly succeed in a game where the rules are changed on the fly?

Quote:
The fact that you think these four constitute "the most widely-known non-guerardian, sedevacantist clerics in the English-speaking world," only demonstrates that you have some more descending to do from that rarified atmosphere.


Honestly, John, I believe it is better for both of us if I refrain from responding. I ask pardon for any part I have played in making this thread, or any other, anything less than it ought to have been.

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


Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:09 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post 
John, my good friend, I think that I have decided to observe the conversation and avoid any reply at this time. I have written a reply now twice, however each time I questioned my own response. Is it rude, is it coherent, can I back it up? I have decided to back away form the una cum argument at this time, admitting that your reaction is correct. I do indeed feel the una cum is much more then a simple prayer for the pope. As always I appreciate the counsel and the conversation, and I look forward to following these issues on this forum.

Your friend in Christ,

Tommy


Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:36 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
John Lane wrote:
So your best effort to back up your general statement that various changes of principle occurred, is to cite the case of two laymen? I rest my case.


You were the one who indicated we should be more focussed on laymen in this exchange, and now doing so is insufficient? Who could possibly succeed in a game where the rules are changed on the fly?


Eamon,

I was not dismissing them as laymen, but as two. Their shift in position was in the nature of an exception that proves the rule.

Eamon Shea wrote:
Honestly, John, I believe it is better for both of us if I refrain from responding. I ask pardon for any part I have played in making this thread, or any other, anything less than it ought to have been.


Accepted. Please accept my apology for any offence also.


Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Their shift in position was in the nature of an exception that proves the rule.


How about another "exception" to the non-existent rule: The Thuc line, or the CMRI. Did you always think about these matters as you think today? Did Mr. Daly? How many prominent laymen or clerics in the Western world always accepted the validity of the Thuc lines, or thought, at one point or other, the CMRI was to be avoided?

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


Last edited by Eamon Shea on Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:30 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
I think it would be helpful if Mr. Shea would try to bring some coherence to what he is actually arguing about. I'd appreciate some general statement as to what he's actually trying to prove. Instead, it seems to be flit here, flit there. Get no satisfaction on one point? Well, we can always jump over here to clause three, sentence two, paragraph B. Somehow we've come from UNA CUM to the Thuc line and all to what point? I'm lost.

If we might only get a one or two sentence statement of what he is trying to prove about what, what his strongest arguments, and main disagreements are. Instead it''s this he said, she said, "aha! gotcha" kind of merry-go-round that's making my head spin.


Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:43 am
Profile

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

I will be happy to stick to the main question henceforth (which was already a digression from "sede orders"), and I apologize (to one and all) that I have failed to do so as well as I should have to this point. However, my main argument in bringing up the Thuc lines, the CMRI, etc, is merely to establish that our resistance (lay and clerical) has not been this pre-packaged deal that has never changed throughout the decades in the face of evidence - in the order of fact, relative to Church teaching.

May your head, and those of all who are, for whatever reason, following this thread, sit quietly upon your shoulders.

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


Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:17 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
How about another "exception" to the non-existent rule: The Thuc line, or the CMRI. Did you always think about these matters as you think today? Did Mr. Daly? How many prominent laymen or clerics in the Western world always accepted the validity of the Thuc lines, or thought, at one point or other, the CMRI was to be avoided?


Dear Eamon,

Please don't call it a "non-existent rule," but rather, discuss the question with me. Aren't you wondering why this bloke who seems to have been around a long time, and who has written a great deal about these matters, thinks that the general lines of the resistance have always been consistent? Can't we explore this a bit without having a debate?

The CMRI are not an example, because that was a change of fact - they kicked out Schuckardt, etc.

The Thuc validity is a better example, because it seems more to involve a question of principle. But perhaps I should restate my point and you might see why that does not seem to me to be an exception either.

What I see and am trying to communicate is that the Holy Ghost dwells in the souls of Catholics, and guides them in accordance with the Faith. Pentecost is therefore an excellent time to be discussing this. Now, let's forget the "sede vacante" solution for the time being, while we think about this, because for many years this solution did not exist.

The good clergy, as I said before, resisted V2 by continuing (or returning) to say the true Mass, preach the true faith, and provide the rest of the sacraments, and the remnant faithful have progressively found their way to these untainted sources. The main body of the resistance congregated around the saintly Archbishop Lefevbre, who was thus the chief leader of it and also a kind of beacon to those still enmeshed in the Novus Ordo. Other elements of resistance involved independent priests continuing their mission, and examples include men such as Fr. Cummins, C.S.S.R., here in Australasia and Fr. Baker in England; and also various families found their way to Oriental Rite chapels where the priests were still valid and the liturgy untainted.

This general picture has hardly changed right down to our day. The notable additional elements are the CMRI as a (relatively) large non-SSPX organisation (although we should remember it is fifteen priests as against four hundred!), and the various ex-SSPX priests who became sedevacantist and ended up out of the Fraternity at different points.

Now, I do not think it true to say that anything fundamental changed in the resistance. I have heard a number of sedevacantists allege that up until some (usually unstated) date, it was "understandable" that people failed to see that the See of Rome was vacant, but that now it is not understandable, and in fact anybody who recognised Wojtyla at a late date or who recognises Ratzinger at all is thereby a stinker, or outside the Church, or stupid, or blind, or all of the above. But this is nothing more than the elevation of their own judgement to equate to that of the Church. It is frustration fathering incipient schism.

Despite this recent tendency, the truth is that the vast bulk of the laity and clergy, sedeplenist and sedevacantist alike, have always been content to provide the sacrements to each other, and to receive them from each other also. I am arguing that there is an essentially sound instinct in this, and that the source of this instinct is the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the souls of each true Catholic in the state of grace. Or, to put it another way, the Holy Ghost is the soul of the Church, and He maintains her unity even in the (apparent) absence of visible authority.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:29 am
Profile E-mail

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

I would be happy to discuss this with you.

Less than 20 years is not a long time, and the little training I have had is more than your own (from what I gather). I did not fall off the bloody turnip truck, and there is a bit of the "look what I/we have done for tradition" mentality that can easily rub one the wrong way (although I trust it is not intended to do so). You are a man who is not much older than I. We were both raised Novus, I believe, and were in the Novus for a good number of years, and although you are clearly intelligent and more well-read than the average, I was in the best seminary in the modern world for two and a half years (and I have read more than the average, too). Is that to my credit? Of course not, but it is a simple fact. God alone be praised for giving me such an opportunity. Would that I had made greater use of it than I did.

The CMRI involves a change of fact, and a change in principle, imo. People thought (some to this day, I believe) they should still be avoided, Schuckardt or not.

As for the general maintenance of Catholic life (Mass, sacraments), it is clear that it should not change much - but the beliefs about the reality of the situation in the Church changed immensely over the decades. I thank God for the men and women who have done His will, separating themselves from the anti-Church which has destroyed the faith of hundreds of millions, and seeks to destroy it in every single soul.

Imo, it only adds to the confusion to call sedevacantism a "solution". It is a statement of the facts about a grave problem, not the solution thereto. That, God's will be ever praised, has yet to arrive.

To change from resisting what you take to be an ill-exercised authority to claiming that it is not really an authority at all is a fundamental change. To conclude that what you are dealing with is a counterfeit religion, from top to bottom, is a fundamental change in perspective - and a correct one. Yes, Abp. Lefebvre was at the center of the resistance, but despite his praiseworthy actions, he was the captain of a confused boat, which wanders dangerously close to the rocks at present. His own indecision about the apostates called 'pope', and conflicting ideas, gave life to both the sedevacantists and to the FSSP-like resistance. Most are still "on the fence", but that does not make it praiseworthy. Pardon the analogy, but the SSPX seems like the life-boats of the Titanic. She is about to go under for good, and they are still tied to her deck, even if floating at a distance.

Do we have a legal declaration that V2 is a non-Council, or that the V2 and post-V2 'popes' are heretics/apostates? No, but we live according to the facts we know (by reason illumined by faith). The lack of juridical action is the reason for the confusion among those who resist. We all know that if there were a functioning authority, these men would have long ago been declared what they are, and that to have any kind of communion with them would be a heinous crime. With all else we do, we go by what the order of fact dictates; why not in the most central act of our Faith, too?

Btw, the reason why the priest you mentioned does not complain, is that Detroit is not a place one longs for! I lived there for two and a half years, trust me! Perth is paradise compared to the Motor City.

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


Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:17 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
I’ve been following this thread and must say that my understanding of the point of it has been hit and miss. The last two posts by John and Eamon I seem to agree with 100 percent…where exactly is the conflict, if there truly is one?

I’d like to comment on something that Eamon said:

“To change from resisting what you take to be an ill-exercised authority to claiming that it is not really an authority at all is a fundamental change. To conclude that what you are dealing with is a counterfeit religion, from top to bottom, is a fundamental change in perspective - and a correct one.”

I think everyone has to go thru this fundamental change (in their own assessment of the situation)…and many traditionalists (those who resist the Vatican II religion, which appears to the whole world to be “Catholic Church”) are at some point in and undergoing this “fundamental change”.

I’ve said everyone must go thru this…well that is not entirely true…remember that there are many goods souls who have little idea or opinion on what is being discussed here…and they never will. Despite this, they are working out their salvation in one of the many traditional chapels. Every day, new souls enter these same chapels (and sadly some choose to leave) who will have to undergo this “fundamental change”. Some will never hold to the sedevacantist "position" because they don't understand the issues and never will...they will remain ignorant in this regard…but they are still “men of good will”.

One typically comes to the Traditional Mass because they (1) discerned that something was terribly wrong with the “Catholic Church” and wanted to return to something you knew was right, and (2) were given a great grace in finding those who still hold to tradition (and I think this is illustrated in the countless stories of just how these souls found the Traditional Mass). This is the starting point for most everyone.


Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:30 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
I was in the best seminary in the modern world for two and a half years (and I have read more than the average, too). Is that to my credit? Of course not, but it is a simple fact.


Dear Eamon,

Sigh. No, I was not big-noting, Eamon, I was hoping that you might realise something. But since you don't, we'll drop it.

What I would like to see is that you address things calmly, one at a time, and if you have actually read something, quote it please. Your confidence actually comes across as that of a young tyke who has not read anything except an article or two by Bishop Sanborn. Which is not a good look, to say the least.

Eamon Shea wrote:
The CMRI involves a change of fact, and a change in principle, imo. People thought (some to this day, I believe) they should still be avoided, Schuckardt or not.


There is no change of principle. All traditional Catholics still think that they must avoid doubtful sacraments and sectarians. Insofar as they have not seen that the CMRI possesses valid orders and is not a sect, they continue to avoid it.

Eamon Shea wrote:
As for the general maintenance of Catholic life (Mass, sacraments), it is clear that it should not change much - but the beliefs about the reality of the situation in the Church changed immensely over the decades. I thank God for the men and women who have done His will, separating themselves from the anti-Church which has destroyed the faith of hundreds of millions, and seeks to destroy it in every single soul.


I don't agree. We are talking at cross-purposes here Eamon. You think I am talking about numbers. I am not. I am talking about policy. Instinctive Catholic response.

Eamon Shea wrote:
Imo, it only adds to the confusion to call sedevacantism a "solution". It is a statement of the facts about a grave problem, not the solution thereto.


It is a statement of fact as far as we see it, in an attempt to solve a theoretical problem - the imposition of a new religion by what appeared to be the bishops of the Catholic Church. Until you can correctly qualify your own position, and see which part of it belongs to you, as an individual, and which part of it belongs to the objective order of reality, you won't ever see my point.

Eamon Shea wrote:
To change from resisting what you take to be an ill-exercised authority to claiming that it is not really an authority at all is a fundamental change.


In theory. In practice it did not necessarily change anything at all. Like I said before, all those families who thought that Montini was not pope, assisting week after week, year after year, at Oriental rite Masses or independent "una cum" chapels. It only seems like this was anomalous because you didn't see it. For the majority of your relatively brief time as a traditional Catholic this "anti-una cum" novelty has been around and making waves. That does not change the fact that it is a Guerardian novelty.

Eamon Shea wrote:
To conclude that what you are dealing with is a counterfeit religion, from top to bottom, is a fundamental change in perspective - and a correct one. Yes, Abp. Lefebvre was at the center of the resistance, but despite his praiseworthy actions, he was the captain of a confused boat, which wanders dangerously close to the rocks at present.


Oh the wisdom. Eamon, if you had any idea the closeness to which the self-important over-confident sedevacantist sails to the rocks, you might just begin see the point.

Eamon Shea wrote:
His own indecision about the apostates called 'pope',


His indecision can easily be seen as virtuous - more virtuous at least than that of the ignoramus who doesn't realise how scandalous for the well-educated Catholic the idea of a universally-absent hierarchy is.

Eamon Shea wrote:
and conflicting ideas, gave life to both the sedevacantists and to the FSSP-like resistance. Most are still "on the fence", but that does not make it praiseworthy. Pardon the analogy, but the SSPX seems like the life-boats of the Titanic. She is about to go under for good, and they are still tied to her deck, even if floating at a distance.


And the over-confident sedevacantist is like the chap who steps off the lifeboat and grabs a piece of flotsam in the vain hope that he will be rescued before hypothermia sets in.

Eamon Shea wrote:
Do we have a legal declaration that V2 is a non-Council, or that the V2 and post-V2 'popes' are heretics/apostates? No, but we live according to the facts we know (by reason illumined by faith).


Which claim makes your refusal to stick to the question at issue even more distressing. Mr. Daly pointed out that you didn't have any argument to prohibit assistance at a Mass in which Benedict is named as pope, but rather that you were suffering from an impressionistic effect illustrated by the irrelevancy of imagining Benedict himself in the sanctuary, and you have not addressed him yet.

Eamon Shea wrote:
The lack of juridical action is the reason for the confusion among those who resist. We all know that if there were a functioning authority, these men would have long ago been declared what they are, and that to have any kind of communion with them would be a heinous crime. With all else we do, we go by what the order of fact dictates; why not in the most central act of our Faith, too?


What exactly is this meant to prove? That if we see that Ratzinger is not pope, we should refuse to acknowledge him as pope? I agree. But of course, you wish it to serve for a further conclusion - that we should stay home alone and miss out on regular access to sacraments, but the problem Eamon is that you don't seem to be able to say why.

Fr. MacDonald was in Kansas. But you'd know why he isn't complaining.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:25 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Tommy Short wrote:
John, my good friend, I think that I have decided to observe the conversation and avoid any reply at this time. I have written a reply now twice, however each time I questioned my own response. Is it rude, is it coherent, can I back it up? I have decided to back away form the una cum argument at this time, admitting that your reaction is correct. I do indeed feel the una cum is much more then a simple prayer for the pope. As always I appreciate the counsel and the conversation, and I look forward to following these issues on this forum.

Your friend in Christ,

Tommy


Dear Tommy,

Thank you, my friend. If and when we slow down the young fellow, I'd like to discuss this with you. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:32 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Daly wrote:
Indeed at High Mass the rubrics require the Master of Ceremonies to withdraw so that he does nothear 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?


'In his Bibliotheca, Fr. Ferraris...

...also mentions that it is licit to pray for the conversion of infidels, heretics and schismatics in the Memento of the living, since it is a private and not a public prayer, thereby implying that it would not be licit to mention them publicly:

“The priest should be warned however [with Azor. lib X, cap. 22, quæst. 3,] that he can correctly pray in the Memento for the conversion of infidels, heretics and schismatics, since this is a private and not public prayer.”[4]'

My emphasis throughout - Eamon. Addendum by way of edit: The above is from Bp. Sanborn's article on the "una cum" issue, which may be found here: http://www.catholicrestoration.org or here http://www.traditionalmass.org

Quote:
For instance suppose I find myself assisting at a Mass which the priest is offering for the intention that a certain country may win a given war, whereas I earnestly believe that the country in question is in the wrong. Must I abstain from assisting at his Mass?


See above. The example you provide, aside from being slightly off-topic, would be part of the Memento, which is clearly not a public prayer. So, the answer to the question is "No, you are free to go to the Mass, although I beg you to kindly remember me before the altar of the Lord."

Addendum: I may not need to mention this, as it is likely not a contested point, but the Te igitur is a public prayer, despite the fact that it is inaudible (as is the majority of the sacred Canon). I do not think anyone is arguing that 'inaudible' equates to 'private', or maybe they are.

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


Last edited by Eamon Shea on Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:57 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
Btw, the reason why the priest you mentioned does not complain, is that Detroit is not a place one longs for! I lived there for two and a half years, trust me! Perth is paradise compared to the Motor City.


My Eamon, you're on a roll. If the availability to the true Mass and sacraments means anything, Detroit is PARADISE! We have 5 Traditional Chapels within a 60 mile radius (not including indults), both 'una cum' and 'non una cum': more if we extend a few miles further out. I doubt Perth can consider itself so lucky, or you. Trust you, mmmm; now did you really mean that?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:31 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 12:53 am
Posts: 49
Location: Red Bluff, CA, USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
My immediate reaction is that you must be under the illusion that the "una cum" clause is something other than a prayer for the pope. The idea that it expresses the idea that the Mass is offered "in union with" the pope (or the heretic, in this case). But that idea has long been exploded and even Bishop Sanborn explicitly disavows it now.


Mr. Lane, I'm going back a ways in the discussion here, but this caught my attention. How recently did Bp. Sanborn change his opinion on this, and how does it affect his overall position on una cum? If you happen to know... otherwise I guess I'll ask someone.

And since this is my first post here, I'd like to thank you for starting up this forum. I really like what you're trying to do and the way it's working so far. :D I've been on more than one trad forum that could really ruin my day! Or month. :roll:


Last edited by Alessio Larrabee on Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:18 am, edited 2 times in total.

Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:15 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:42 pm
Posts: 10
New post Questions for Eamon
Eamon,

I've been following this exchange with interest. Could you please clear up a few things, as I am not sure I understand your position?

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?

Thank you.


Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:08 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:13 pm
Posts: 21
New post 
Alessio Larrabee wrote:
John Lane wrote:
My immediate reaction is that you must be under the illusion that the "una cum" clause is something other than a prayer for the pope. The idea that it expresses the idea that the Mass is offered "in union with" the pope (or the heretic, in this case). But that idea has long been exploded and even Bishop Sanborn explicitly disavows it now.


Mr. Lane, I'm going back a ways in the discussion here, but this caught my attention. How recently did Bp. Sanborn change his opinion on this, and how does it affect his overall position on una cum? If you happen to know... otherwise I guess I'll ask someone ...



I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Mr. Larabee is right. I at least have never heard Bp. Sanborn change his position, which is that the Mass is offered through the pope, as vicar of Christ, and that the identification of the pope is made in the Te Igitur.


Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:27 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Penrod Schofield wrote:
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Mr. Larabee is right. I at least have never heard Bp. Sanborn change his position, which is that the Mass is offered through the pope, as vicar of Christ, and that the identification of the pope is made in the Te Igitur.


Dear Penrod,

Bishop Sanborn certainly changed his position, because at one time he accepted Paul VI as pope and mentioned his name in the Canon, then he became a sedevacantist and ceased mentioning the Nope (at that time JP2, I believe) in the Canon. Later again, as I understand it (in the 1990s), he accepted the theory of Guerard des Lauriers regarding the nature of the vacancy of the Holy See and with it adopted the Guerardian position that it is illicit for a laymen to assist at a Mass at which a Nope is mentioned in the Canon.

Now, I am not sure whether he adopted the Guerardian "anti una cum" position immediately he became a Guerardian, but I doubt it. I spoke with him on the telephone several times regarding sedevacantism and the Mass and related matters in around 1991-93, and I still have the notes from those conversations. I was at that time assisting at Holy Mass offered by Fr. Augustine Cummins (RIP). Fr. Sanborn (as he was then) had just published an article in Catholic Restoration putting the Guerardian position on assisting at Mass offered by a non-sedevacantist and I was somewhat disturbed by it and discussed, amongst other things, moving to the USA. Fr. Sanborn, in his charity, even offered financial assistance to this end. The article published by Fr. Sanborn at that time was by Fr. Hervé Belmont, one of the most erudite and holy priests one could ever meet.

At that time the “anti-una cum” position was a revelation to all non-Guerardians, as far as I am aware. Everybody saw it as a new idea and a good friend of mine, a Latinist and Greek scholar who is also sedevacantist, answered it under the pen name “F.X. Lamouroux.” Fr. Sanborn also published this response, and provided a further response himself, in which he conceded that the central theme of Fr. Belmont’s article, which was that the “una cum” clause is an expression of union with the pope in offering the Mass (viz. “I offer this Mass in union with the pope, N.”) was incorrect. Instead, as all are now clear, the prayer is for the pope (viz. “I offer this Mass for the Church … and also for the pope, N.”). Fr. Sanborn, however, provided an alternative reason for avoiding such Masses. Without re-living the entire controversy, which was carried on in the best Catholic spirit of mutual respect and diligent attention to the points at hand, the end result for me and many others was that the case had not been made, and that we were free to continue with the traditional practice of virtually all traditional Catholics.

Now, at that point Fr. Sanborn was non-Guerardian himself – at least publicly – and was saying that he was leaning towards the Cassiciacum Thesis but had not yet adopted it. I recall this because I also recall being disappointed when he said that he was decided in its favour. If anybody is in touch with him they might like to share these notes with him and see if he wishes to correct anything or add to the information.

As an important qualification to the above, it should be noted that Fr. Belmont himself does not hold to a dogmatic “anti-una cum” position. He has publicly given the following advice:

Quote:
...it is quite certain that no Catholic may formally cooperate with the una cum Johanne-Paulo pronounced by a priest in the Canon of the Mass. It is impossible for him to unite himself with such an act which expresses allegiance to a false rule of faith and sacramental dependence on one who is not the head of the true sacraments of the Church.

Is it possible to assist at the 'una cum' Mass without this impossible (morally speaking) formal co-operation – i.e. is it possible to limit oneself to a morally permissible material co-operate?

We think the answer is 'yes' on the following conditions:

– refuse interiorly this 'una cum' and protest before God one's wish to conform oneself to all the exigencies of the Catholic Faith;
– have a grave (i.e. proportionate) reason for doing so. It is quite clear that the fear of having to travel further or of fatigue or the wish to take advantage of more convenient timetables or of avoiding unwelcome encounters could not be sufficient reasons. By contrast, the necessity of placing one's children in a school with sound morals or of not exposing oneself to a dangerous deprivation of the sacraments might be this grave reason.

In a word, assistance at the Mass defiled with the Una cum must not be voluntary – it must be forced on us. We realise that some will accuse us of not being rigorous enough on this point, but we fear to incur the reproach Our Lord addressed to the Pharisees; “For 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.” (Matt, 23:4)


I disagree with Fr Belmont's view of the matter, in that I do not see how the layman in the pew, or even the server in the sanctuary, is in any sense cooperating with the expression by the priest of the “una cum” clause, but I think it is significant that even if one were to become convinced of that view it would still not put one in a position where Masses offered by non-sedevacantist priests would have to be considered unavailable.

As for Bishop Sanborn's theory that the Mass is offered via the pope to God, that is a novelty which seems to me to rely upon the non-Thomist opinion in the "chief offerer of the Mass" controversy. Why Bishop Sanborn chooses to go with the Scotists against the Thomists on this point remains a mystery. In any case, no binding precept can be built upon a controverted opinion in theology. That, as far as I ca tell, is axiomatic.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:20 am
Profile E-mail

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

Perhaps I am missing something here regarding the "una cum" issue. But I have the sublime honor of being allowed to serve Holy Mass at my parish as a Acolyte. And, as when I was a child serving the Holy Sacrifice as now, I have never heard the priests utterance of who in the "una cum" he is mentioning. In addition, we also do not hear the mommento offerings either.

Given that none of the Missals have the local Bishop or " pope" for that matter printed in this portion of Holy Mass, it does seem rather " non-public", and thus not a distraction to anyone assisting at that Mass Centers offering of the Holy Sacrifice.

It really seems like " much ado about nothing".......

In Christ our King.
Vincent


Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:26 am
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
And, as when I was a child serving the Holy Sacrifice as now, I have never heard the priests utterance of who in the "una cum" he is mentioning. In addition, we also do not hear the mommento offerings either.


Public and audible are not to be equated, although I can understand that one might think so.

Quote:
Given that none of the Missals have the local Bishop or "pope" for that matter printed in this portion of Holy Mass, it does seem rather "non-public", and thus not a distraction to anyone assisting at that Mass Centers offering of the Holy Sacrifice.


The reason the individual names are not printed (there is an "N____" in these places) is that the men who fill these postitions change from time to time. If the names of the individuals were printed therein, any changes (through death, resignation, etc.) would require printing (and buying) all new books - throughout the entire world. That people may or may not be distracted is not actually what we are concerned about.

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


Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:23 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Quote:
The reason the individual names are not printed (there is an "N____" in these places) is that the men who fill these postitions change from time to time. If the names of the individuals were printed therein, any changes (through death, resignation, etc.) would require printing (and buying) all new books - throughout the entire world. That people may or may not be distracted is not actually what we are concerned about.



Yes, but- distraction is also a consideration. And one does know why the N___ is there, but the fact remains, I would have to ask questions of the priest prior to Mass to even know if he was " una cum" or not.

In Xto,


Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:40 am
Profile
Site Admin

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

Please answer the questions and objections you've already provoked, put by Mr. Daly, Mike, me, and Zelie, and anybody else who has responded to you so far. If and when you manfully deal with those questions and objections, you may continue to argue. But if you are just going to ignore what others respond to your posts, then you are merely employing this forum as a publishing system to spread your personal beliefs, and that is not its purpose. You can do that to your heart's content on Fisheaters, for example.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:27 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Please answer the questions and objections you've already provoked, put by Mr. Daly, Mike, me, and Zelie, and anybody else who has responded to you so far.


To answer some points, while leaving others unaddressed for the moment, has (in the recent past) involved being accused of not sticking to the point (singular) [which is part of the reason why I was, as of late, taking my time in response, only dealing with one, small point at a time]. Now it is "all or none - immediately"? I have limited time during the work-week to use for such purposes - I am simply not able to get to them all immediately (and I appreciate the patience of those who may have asked a question to which I have not yet responded). I am doing what I can with the time I have (and I fully intend to get to each and every question). We are not in some 'big hurry' here, are we?

Quote:
...If and when you manfully deal with those questions and objections, you may continue to argue. But if you are just going to ignore what others respond to your posts, then you are merely employing this forum as a publishing system to spread your personal beliefs, and that is not its purpose...


I am not ignoring them, John. Among all the alleged 'questions and objections' I have not responded to, let us settle upon ONE of them and explicitly hammer out what it is, so that I may focus on it without being accused of unmanfully ignoring the other ones. Then, we can do so regarding another point, etc. Thank you for your time.

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


Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:13 pm
Posts: 21
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Penrod Schofield wrote:
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Mr. Larabee is right. I at least have never heard Bp. Sanborn change his position, which is that the Mass is offered through the pope, as vicar of Christ, and that the identification of the pope is made in the Te Igitur.


Dear Penrod,

Bishop Sanborn certainly changed his position, because at one time ...


I meant changed his position on this question -- that the "Te Igitur" is not a prayer *for* the pope, but an expression of ecclesial union with him. I didn't mean he never changed his position in general. Of course, we have all changed our positions on something! I apologize for the misunderstanding. :oops:


Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:34 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:13 pm
Posts: 21
New post 
Excuse me for jumping in here, but I think I need to make a clarification. Eamon, it is a general principle of moral theology that a moral obligation must be proved, and a grave prohibition (such as you are defending) must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Thus the burden of proof rests on >you<, my friend. :wink:

This controversy is one that I have paid great attention to, and I used to share your view, Eamon. I think its defenders make some good points, but what's missing is the logical progression of one argument to the next, leading to the conclusion. Each point looks strong in isolation (such as your essentially emotional argument about whether it would be legitimate to attend Mass at a chapel where Ratzinger is sitting in the sanctuary -- the burden is on you to prove that we would be committing a mortal sin by attending such a Mass), but when you step back and look at the big picture, the various arguments don't seem to mesh with each other into a coherent, conclusive whole.

What I would like to see is a series of arguments, each of which is proved independently, and each of which necessarily and inexorably proves the next, until you bring us to the conclusion that we certainly commit a mortal sin by attending an "una cum" Mass. Let's see what you can do, buddy. :D


Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:37 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 255 posts ]  Go to page 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.