It is currently Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:38 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 The Meaning of the "una cum" clause 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Chris Browne wrote:
to my mind, there is no essential difference between an Indult Mass said in union with someone I (privately, of course) hold to be a heretic, and an SSPX Mass also said in union with the same man.


The "una cum" clause does not signify that the Mass is offered "in union with" anybody, not even the pope. The pope and the other leading members of the Church are prayed for by name during the Mass.

Now, make whatever argument you like, but if it rests on confusion over the very meaning of the words used, it won't convince anybody. This is no comment on you, of course, because you're new to this, but those who insist on describing Mass offered by a sedeplenist priest as offered "in union with Benedict" are implicitly admitting the essential weakness of their argument. This is because if they had a good argument they would be able to be honest about the words of the Mass.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:32 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:

Quote:
The "una cum" clause does not signify that the Mass is offered "in union with" anybody, not even the pope. The pope and the other leading members of the Church are prayed for by name during the Mass.


(I still can't figure out how to get the name of the person quoted into the body of the quote!)

Then what does it mean, specifically? I'm willing to learn. Surely it is not without significance?


Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:40 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Chris Browne wrote:
Then what does it mean, specifically? I'm willing to learn. Surely it is not without significance?


Of course. Of the authors whom I have consulted on the meaning of the Te Igitur, the following teach unequivocally that it is a prayer FOR the pope: Gihr, Cochem, Kearney, Fortescue, O'Callaghan, Lallou, Martindale, and Pope Benedict XIV; also the numerous ancient authors quoted by Benedict (including St. Robert Bellarmine), by Fortescue, and by some of the others.

Other works which teach the same truth (that the "una cum" clause is a prayer FOR the pope) identified by F.X. Lamoureux are:

Cp. Boulet, Denis and Braudy, Roger, The Eucharist, in The Church At Prayer series, A.G. Mortimer (ed.), transl. by Miriam Hederman (1971, Shannon, Irish University Press) ii 148 f ; Mgr. Chevrot, Notre Messe, transl. by J. Holland Smith (1958), Our Mass (London, Challoner Publications) 129 f.; Davis, Williams O.S.B., Thomas, O.P, Crehan, S.J., (eds.) (1962), A Catholic Dictionary of Theology, (Edinburgh, Nelson and Sons), i 321; Parsch, Pius, The Liturgy of the Mass, transl. by H. E. Winstone, M.A. (1957, London, Herder), 230 ff.; Lercaro, Giacomo Cardinal (1959), A Small Liturgical Dictionary, (London, Burns, Oates & Washbourn), 58 & 198; King, 311 ff.; etc. Duchesne, L. (1889), Origines du culte chretien, etude sur la liturgie latine avant Charlemagne, Eng. trans. by M. L. McClure (1902, 5th ed 1931)

You might also find the following data informative. It is from F.X. Lamoureux, in his 1992 article "Una quicum" (published in Fr. Sanborn's Catholic Restoration):

Quote:
What, then, is the true meaning of una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro? The learned Fortescue writes in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The priest prays first for the Church, then for the pope, and diocesan ordinary by name ... When the Roman See is vacant, the mention of the Pope is left out ... [ref.]

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says:
... the first intercessory prayer petitions God to help the pope, the local bishop and other rulers (cultoribus) of the Church..."[ref.]

A. Croegaert writes:
We then set out in order the intentions for which we are offering the sacrifice; this is the intercession (intercessio) for the Universal Church, the Pope, the Bishop, (the Prince) and all the bishops ... [ref.]

and:

Una cum: this adverb and preposition do not relate (as some think) to the rather distant verb offerimus, but quite naturally link the reference to the Church to that of the hierarchy... [ref.]

Jungmann has this to say:
... This [i.e., praying that the Church be pacified, guarded, united and governed] leads on to the mention of those through whom the Spirit of God wills to direct the Church and hold it together as a visible society ... [ref.]

and:
In the prayer for persons the first to be mentioned is, very fittingly, the Church as a whole, and especially those who have charge of it: the Pope, and the bishop, who are mentioned by name, and then `all those who, believing what is true, foster the Catholic and apostolic faith'; - that is, all the bishops of the world ... [ref.]

Other authorities [ref.] say the same. They agree that the purpose of the reference to the Pope (which is not to be separated from the reference to the bishops) is simply to implore God's help for him; it is no different from the intercessory prayer which we say for him in the Good Friday liturgy. Una cum does not suggest any special relationship between the Pope and the Church as far as the offering of the sacrifice of Holy Mass is concerned, but simply indicates the will of the suppliants (supplices) to single out certain members of the Ecclesia sancta catholica for whom help is especially desired.[ref.]


The meaning was also dealt with here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... =3869#3869

See that post and the ones below it.

Even Bishop Sanborn grants the truth of this point. It is indisputable.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:46 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Spokane
New post 
Hopefully these Masses with the "una cum" clause will be helpful with Benedict XVI's conversion back to the True Catholic Faith. Nice thought if you happen to attend one.

_________________
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.


Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:20 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:00 pm
Posts: 8
New post 
Saint Andrew's Daily Missal 1952

English Translation: "...vouchsafe to keep her in peace, to watch over her in unity and to guide her, in union with N. Thy servant our Pope,...."

Roman Missal 1947

English translation: "...which we offer thee in the first place for thy holy Catholic Church, praying that thou wilt be pleased to keep and guide her in peace and unity throughout the world; together with thy servant our Pope N, and......"

Ronald Knox on the Te Igitur:

"And there is only one altar really; that altar behind me is the same thing as the High Altar at St Peter's and the High Altar at Westminster Cathedral, and the nasty little soapbox on which, perhaps, some miserable, exiled priest is saying Mass as best he can somehere out in Siberia. Only one altar, and the whole Catholic Church is one congregation, worshipping together; all of you as you kneel at Mass here are only specimens...... Just as the Mass cuts out time, it cuts out space.... But of course this terrific thing, the unity of the Christian Church, isn't an easy thing for our imagination to grasp. Most of us find it easier to get exited over a person than over an institution. So in the Mass we focus the whole idea of the Catholic Church for ourselves by seeing it as represented in one man, Pope Pius XII. We ask God to give the Church peace..., to give it unity, ....and to give it wise government. And all those ideas are easily summed up for us when we think of the Holy Father in Rome and what he is thinking about"

So they were all wrong then? :shock:

Emily


Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:30 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Emily wrote:
So they were all wrong then? :shock:


Please try not to take scandal, at least in public. :)

No, they were all right, not wrong. None of them teaches that the "una cum" clause is an expression of common offering of the Mass with the pope; each of them understands that it is a prayer for the pope.

Now, if you wish to comment on the fact that the priest, in mentioning the name of Benedict in this place is signifying his communion with him, his subjection to him, his recognition that Benedict is the pope, then do so. That would be true.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:37 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
Surprisingly, I do possess several of the references you cite, but they are not at hand (as you know.) While I am, no doubt, trying your patience, I assure you I am not trying to be provocative for the sake of provocation, (and certainly not for the fun of it. :) ) I admit I’ve hesitated to respond, but since you’ve asked for my reply (on the original thread, where I will leave some additional comments), I offer the following.

While I concede that una cum does not mean, ‘in union with’, it is only in the explicit sense of the phrase. If it means prayers for a man you don't believe to be Pope, as if he were the Pope, isn't that, implicitly, 'in union with"? Since I accept the premise that Benedict XVI is a heretic (which position I assume is held by many, if not most, of those participating in this forum), to pray for Joseph Ratzinger that he return to the Church is one thing (and, hopefully, we all do), but to pray for him as Benedict XVI within this context would be an implicit admission that I accept a non-Catholic as Pope. If I do not, and inasmuch as it is also ‘my’ Mass, una cum in the implicit sense would be paradoxical and inconsistent. Consequently, I avoid the Indult Mass said within two miles of my home, and those of groups like the SSPX where the corporate position is, unquestionably, that Benedict XVI is Pope, and all indications are that most of its priests adhere to that position. (Whether they do so privately is another matter altogether.) I have nothing against those attending the Indult, nor those who avail themselves of the services of the SSPX, but - I can't do it.

From the excerpted references you provided, it would seem that, in either sense, the name of the Pope and the local ordinary are inextricably entwined. It would be interesting to know whether priests who include Benedict in the Canon also mention the Ordinary. Afterall, ‘all politics are local’, and I don’t think it an exaggeration that the misdeeds of the local bishops often exceed that for which we accuse Benedict XVI. If you accept Benedict XVI as the visible head of the Church, they are linked such that you could hardly exclude his representative.

I now also see in your reply to Emily, that, as far as the priest offering the Mass is concerned, una cum could possibly mean, 'in union with'. You wrote:

Quote:
Now, if you wish to comment on the fact that the priest, in mentioning the name of Benedict in this place is signifying his communion with him, his subjection to him, his recognition that Benedict is the pope, then do so. That would be true.


(I have a sneaky suspicion I'm going to regret this :) )

Again, inasmuch as we offer the Mass through the priest, are we, then, indicating that we are 'in union with' the Pope (and Bishop) named? That should be an interesting dilemma for those priests/bishops who accept Benedict XVI, and yet refuse to really be subject to him by operating outside his authority, and that of the local Bishop, by building a parallel structure within the confines of his diocese? (Not that they don't have good reasons for doing so, and should do, for the good of souls.)


Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:37 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Chris Browne wrote:
While I concede that una cum does not mean, ‘in union with’, it is only in the explicit sense of the phrase.


I think that's your way of saying that the "una cum" clause does not mean that we offer the Mass "in union with" whomever is named. Thank you.

Now, the rest of your post raised an entirely different argument why we cannot assist at Masses offered by sedeplenist priests, which of course is not the issue we were dealing with in this thread. This thread was created precisely to split off from a different subject the erroneous notion concerning the meaning of the "una cum" clause, which you have now conceded, and we will now create a new thread to consider your new argument.

Ever played one of those games where you whack a mole on the head and it pops down its hole, only to have several others pop up at varying radii and distances from your present position? :D

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
Yes, but, unfortunately, you wield the mallet and I'm the mole.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:19 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:06 am
Posts: 63
New post 
Emily wrote:
Saint Andrew's Daily Missal 1952

English Translation: "...vouchsafe to keep her in peace, to watch over her in unity and to guide her, in union with N. Thy servant our Pope,...."


Hi Emily

I too have the Saint Andrew's Daily Missal, actually three of them.

They all say the same thing yours does. All of them also have a commentary either beside the prayer or above the prayer.



1945 edition: "The priest interrupts the Canon and prays for the living heads and members of the Church Militant.

1956 edition: "He prays for the whole Church - the Pope, the local bishop, bishops throughout the world.

1952 or 1953 edition: "Next he prays for the whole Church, for the Pope, for the bishop of the diocese and for the bishops of the whole world.



I always like to read the commentaries, most specially as Latin isn't my first language. Also they are good things to stop us from self-interpreting things above our heads, and getting them wrong.

Does your 1952 Saint Andrew's missal have any commentary? It would be interesting if it were any different.

Well, I sure do hope my commentaries have helped you to understand your missal and the mass better and removed any non-existent conflict that you thought was there.

_________________
JRM


Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:55 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
I have always been interested in what is said at the end of the Te igitur and I haven't seen it addressed here directly.

From the 1945 Fr. Lasance Missal..."and for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith".

That surely applies to all who are prayed for in the Mass doesn't it? The normal assumption is that the Pope and local Bishop are of course "orthodox in belief" and "profess the Catholic and apostolic faith".

What traditionalist (of any flavor) thinks that B16 is "orthodox in belief" and one who "professes the Catholic and apostolic faith"?

Btw, I am just making a comment here...not defending any position. :)


Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:44 pm
Profile
New post 
*pondering*

Robert, It looks like it means "and for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostalic faith", dude.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:37 pm

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
eliz carroll wrote:
*pondering*

Robert, It looks like it means "and for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostalic faith", dude.


Eliz,

I wasn't really asking what it meant...and I don't see how your merely repeating the phrase sheds any light on it either. Also, I'll assume that the "dude" remark was not meant with any disrespect. :)

Robert


Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:19 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:06 am
Posts: 63
New post 
Emily wrote:

The distinction between 'for' and 'together with' is a total red herring. Personally I believe it is both.



I will stick with the commentaries of the Saint Andrew Missals, as I posted previously, over what you personally believe. You never did come back to me on that. I was trying to help you understand things a bit better, using a source YOU gave, so neither you nor I have to rely on our own personal take on things.

_________________
JRM


Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:27 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 am
Posts: 138
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:

I have always been interested in what is said at the end of the Te igitur and I haven't seen it addressed here directly.

From the 1945 Fr. Lasance Missal..."and for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith".


Hello Robert,

I have thought about this too, and, like you, am interested in what others might think. I know you are just making an observation and so am I. Funnily enough, as an SSPX attending sede, I manage to extract consolation from the fact that it clarifies just who is being prayed for in the Canon - the pope (when there is one) - "and all true believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith". In my view, B16 excludes himself from this prayer entirely because he does not fit into either category! His name is mentioned, but he is not getting any of the benefits. If I offered a prayer for the "Administrator of Bellarmine Forums " - Br Dimond - because I incorrectly thought Br. Dimond was the administrator here, for whom would I be praying? And would I be a Feeneyite?

As to what the average SSPX priest must think as he utters those two contradictory thoughts in the prayer itself, well, who knows? Maybe some of them don't mention B16 because of that very contradiction. We wouldn't necessarily know. But for those that do, perhaps they make a distinction between the prayer for the man they believe to be pope and the rest of the Church and so offer their prayer for B16 purely as "recognition of him as head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of Blessed Peter...", as was pointed out in another thread:

Benedict XIV teaches, “…a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognises him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity.”[28]


AMW


Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:44 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Spokane
New post 
Thought I would add this tid bit I found into this discussion:

Note in the Eucharistic prayer the special form only used by the Pope: una cum me indigno famulo tuo - in union with me your unworthy servant. He's the only priest in the world who never mentions the Pope's name in the Eucharistic prayer.
To me it seems (and I have not checked this) that the proper prayers of the Mass are simply those found in any altar missal 'For the Pope' with the obvious exception that instead of saying 'Benedict' the Holy Father says 'me'.

http://zadokromanus.blogspot.com/2005/0 ... ation.html

_________________
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.


Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:46 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 68
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Everyone:

I think there's a misunderstanding here. Fr. Cekada's argument that the Holy Mass is offered in union with Benedict XVI is merely one single point out of the ten he makes. It is point no. seven. In other words, even assuming that the "una cum" clause in no way makes the Mass being offered in union with Benedict, this still does not get rid of the other problems. Here is Fr. Cekada's summary. The sedevacantist who attends an una cum Mass, Fr. argues:

(1) Tells a pernicious lie.
(2) Professes communion with heretics.
(3) Recognizes as legitimate the Ecumenical, One-World Church.
(4) Implicitly professes a false religion.
(5) Condones a violation of Church law.
(6) Participates in a sin.
(7) Offers Mass in union with the heretic/false
pope Ratzinger.
(8 ) Recognizes the usurper of an ecclesiastical office.
(9) Offers an occasion for the sin of scandal
(10) In the case of Masses offered by “resistance”
clergy (SSPX, its affiliates and many independent clergy) participates in gravely illicit Masses and condones the sin of schism

--objectively speaking. I am emphasizing this because some seem to think that Fr. Cekada's entire article is refuted by the consideration that the "una cum" clause is merely a prayer for the Pope.

Mario


Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:38 pm
Profile

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


Dear Mario,

However, it appears good Fr. Cekada's points 1-6, 8-10 all hinge on the position that the una cum is offered "in union" with a undeclared heretic.

See how the house of cards falls?

In Xto,
Vincent


Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:06 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 68
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
However, it appears good Fr. Cekada's points 1-6, 8-10 all hinge on the position that the una cum is offered "in union" with a undeclared heretic.

See how the house of cards falls?


Dear Vincent,

No, I think this is a misperception. In fact, Fr. Cekada just told me as much on Sunday. Let us remember that Pope Benedict XIV said that the mention of the Pope's name in the canon is an expression of communion with him (of course). Fr. Cekada is saying that by your active participation in the una cum Mass, you (as a sedevacantist) are expressing communion with Benedict XVI - and therefore points 1-6 and 8-10 apply very much.

Some have argued that because of the confusion of the times, one cannot assume that someone who goes to an SSPX Mass necessarily believes that Benedict XVI is a Pope - and therefore it doesn't matter that the sedevacantist assists at that Mass without in any way indicating that he objects to Benny's name in the canon. However, I have yet to see evidence that this is possible. (And pardon me if this has already been provided and I haven't seen it yet.) As a general rule, it is assumed that the people who go to a particular church are actually members of that religion or agree with what is going on there, unless they manifestly demonstrate the contrary. So, for example, I assume that people who are gathered in a Baptist church are Baptists. Though I understand that this may not be true for a few individuals, the general presumption is that they are Baptists. (Imagine the opposite claim: You have no reason to suppose that someone who worships at a Baptist church is Baptist. What are we to assume? That he's Methodist?)

Therefore, the general presumption is that someone who goes to an SSPX Mass is an adherent of the SSPX. This is not unreasonable, even in our times. (I think if you were to destroy this principle, everything would be thrown into confusion.) It therefore falls on the sedevacantist who goes there to prove that this assumption is not warranted. Demonstrate that by assisting actively at an SSPX Mass, you are not professing communion with Benedict. I think that's a fair challenge. Again, the question is not about whether the priest is mistaken, but whether the sedevacantist is professing communion not with the priest but with Benedict, who is being publicly acknowledged in the Church's highest form of worship as the Pope of the Catholic Church. The natural sense being conveyed by the objective action itself - that of actively assisting at a Mass being offered with Benedict being named in the canon - the natural sense is that the people who actively assist at it agree with this. This is only reasonable. Therefore, while it is perhaps possible not to agree, I'd like to see a demonstration, using authoritative sources, that this can licitly be done.

God bless,

Mario


Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:28 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Meaning of the "una cum" Clause
Mario,

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! Nice to see you participating in the forum. Question for you: if the sedevacantist believes his sedevacantism only an opinion, (albeit, believing it the correct solution to the crisis), would this permit the sedevacantist to attend an SSPX Mass without incurring Fr. Cekada's judgment of 'grave' sin?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:53 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 68
Location: Ohio, USA
New post Re: Meaning of the "una cum" Clause
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Mario,

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! Nice to see you participating in the forum. Question for you: if the sedevacantist believes his sedevacantism only an opinion, (albeit, believing it the correct solution to the crisis), would this permit the sedevacantist to attend an SSPX Mass without incurring Fr. Cekada's judgment of 'grave' sin?


Excellent question, Teresa! And Merry Christmas/ Happy New Year to you also. I am not qualified to answer but can only offer an opinion - no pun intended. :D My response would be that since it is merely your opinion that Benedict XVI is not the Pope, what you are really saying is that you do not know whether he is the Pope or not - in other words, you have doubt. But doubt can only exist in the mind; in your actions, you must resolve the doubt one way or another, i.e. you must either acknowledge him as Pope or not. For example, do you pray for him as Pope Benedict or merely as Fr. Ratzinger? Whichever it is, it is one or the other. While you may say you pray for him as Maybe-Pope, you cannot go to a Mass that confesses him as a Maybe-Pope. I suppose the most logical thing to do would be to go to neither Mass, neither una cum nor non-una-cum, precisely because you could be sinning either way (objectively, and supposing that Fr. Cekada is correct), and you have the option to go to neither. If you believed yourself to be possibly sinning even by staying home (which is unreasonable, however), then, acc. to the principles mentioned by Fr. Dominic Prummer in his Handbook of Moral Theology, you would be free to choose what seems least evil to you, and if all seems equal, you would be allowed to choose whatever you wish to do. :D

But then again, there are other big issues with SSPX Masses aside from una cum.

God bless,

Mario


Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:07 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: Meaning of the "una cum" Clause
marioderksen wrote:
But doubt can only exist in the mind; in your actions, you must resolve the doubt one way or another, i.e. you must either acknowledge him as Pope or not.


Yes, I see the reasonableness of your quote above. But, let's go back to your analogy about the married woman and her husband (that has an evil twin). Your tale states that said husband off to war for many years is finally killed by his evil twin who then usurps the role of husband. Analogies always being shaky premises; however, unless you have seen the evil twin actually kill his brother, your judgment that in fact the evil twin is now acting as husband is only your opinion. You have no real, true, factual knowledge that he is indeed the evil twin. To cause anxiety to the wife based on your 'opinion' would be cruel.

Now, cut-to-the-chase, sedevacantism is a theological opinion that has much merit in answering the present Church crisis. However, it, also, has huge holes that we sedevacantists like to term 'mystery': not the least of which are the doctrinal necessities of visibility of the Church and a necessary jurisdictional hierarchy, the Magisterium, if you will. Mario, sedevacantism is a theological opinion as answer to the current Church crisis. It may be the wrong theological opinion. Theological opinion can never be asserted as dogmatic fact. Even if I adhere to the sedevacantist position, I cannot force that as dogmatic fact upon myself, let alone others: to do so would endanger my unity with the Mystical Body of Christ.

It would be nice and comfortable to have the issue be 'black and white'; but, I daresay it is not that easy.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:30 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 68
Location: Ohio, USA
New post Re: Meaning of the "una cum" Clause
Teresa Ginardi wrote:

Yes, I see the reasonableness of your quote above. But, let's go back to your analogy about the married woman and her husband (that has an evil twin). Your tale states that said husband off to war for many years is finally killed by his evil twin who then usurps the role of husband. Analogies always being shaky premises; however, unless you have seen the evil twin actually kill his brother, your judgment that in fact the evil twin is now acting as husband is only your opinion. You have no real, true, factual knowledge that he is indeed the evil twin. To cause anxiety to the wife based on your 'opinion' would be cruel.


Glad you're bringing this up because I want to clarify. I realize that my analogy does not match the una cum situation precisely - and wasn't meant to. If I have time, I want to think about the analogy more and fashion it more precisely to correspond to the una cum situation. My point in drawing this analogy was to suggest that it is wrong to think that all that matters is what is intended, and the rest is accidental with no consequences for anyone. Perhaps no one was disputing this to begin with, but I got the feeling that as long as we can label something a "mistake," nothing too serious follows.

I agree with you that my analogy does not work well if your belief that the husband has been usurped by an evil twin is just your opinion. But I wasn't saying it's just your opinion - I was saying you knew it to be so (say you saw it or he confessed to you and showed photos of the dead brother, etc. - dones't matter). And Fr. Cekada's article is most relevant to sedevacantists who are convinced that Ratzinger is not the Pope - not so much to those who just hold it as an "opinion" - as in "I prefer Coke to Sprite."

Quote:
Now, cut-to-the-chase, sedevacantism is a theological opinion that has much merit in answering the present Church crisis. However, it, also, has huge holes that we sedevacantists like to term 'mystery': not the least of which are the doctrinal necessities of visibility of the Church and a necessary jurisdictional hierarchy, the Magisterium, if you will. Mario, sedevacantism is a theological opinion as answer to the current Church crisis. It may be the wrong theological opinion. Theological opinion can never be asserted as dogmatic fact. Even if I adhere to the sedevacantist position, I cannot force that as dogmatic fact upon myself, let alone others: to do so would endanger my unity with the Mystical Body of Christ.


That's a separate issue, Teresa, and one Fr. Cekada isn't addressing. We can discuss the merits and problems of sedevacantism. Though I by no means believe it to be a dogma, LOL, that Ratzinger isn't the Pope, I can't say it's just my opinion. Is it also just our opinion that the New Mass is bad? Or that the New Marriage "Annulments" are bogus? If it's all just an opinion, then what are we doing? Can we separate from the "official" (LOL!) hierarchy based on an opinion we hold? Can we establish our own parishes based on an opinion? No, if it's all just mere opinion, we'd have to conclude that we need to submit to Ratzinger because the Pope trumps any opinions we might hold! I don't see "opinionism" (as Bp. Sanborn calls it) a viable option. We cannot salvage the problems of the visible hierarchy by holding that the First See being empty is just an opinion. How does that help the situation, anyway? Does that do away with the problems of jurisdiction and all that? (We'd have to hold that people who are in no wise Catholic, like Mahony and Niederauer, can have jurisdiction in the Church.)

I would never enter into schism based on opinion; and if Ratzo were the Pope, I would be a schismatic, though only materially, not formally.

I don't have "the answers" either. All I can say is that out of all the possible options one can take, sedevacantism is the only one that doesn't run into contradictions, only unanswered questions. The Novus Ordo position is contradictory; the indult position is; the SSPX position is; sedevacantism is not. I found the following essay by Bp. Dolan, in which he compares the merits and demerits of all possible options, to be very insightful:

http://www.catholicrestoration.org/library/apostasy.htm

God bless,

Mario


Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:52 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Mario Derksen wrote:
I don't have "the answers" either. All I can say is that out of all the possible options one can take, sedevacantism is the only one that doesn't run into contradictions, only unanswered questions. The Novus Ordo position is contradictory; the indult position is; the SSPX position is; sedevacantism is not.


Mario,

You seem to be equating the Novus Ordo and the Indult (which is no more), with the SSPX, Independents, and sedevacantists. Isn't the Novus Ordo what we are fighting? The problem with the Novus Ordo is hardly due to contradictions.

Robert


Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:44 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post The Meaning of the "una cum" Clause
Edited to Delete Post

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Last edited by Teresa Ginardi on Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:54 am
Profile

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

Dear Mario,

Well, I will put it this way, if Fr. Cekada's position is indeed correct regarding Una Cum, I will no longer hold the sede position.
But, it does not appear he is correct. One cannot hold a view that is a private oppinion, as if it was made a Public one by the Church.

History shows, during the great western schism and the Arian heresy, that his position really does not hold.

In Xto,
Vincent


Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:18 am
Profile

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

Mario stated;
Quote:
So, for example, I assume that people who are gathered in a Baptist church are Baptists. Though I understand that this may not be true for a few individuals, the general presumption is that they are Baptists.


So, your inferring that a SSPX Chapel is not Catholic? If so, your holding them in schism?

In Xto,
Vincent


Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:21 am
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:56 am
Posts: 46
Location: In Partibus Infidelium...
New post Re: The Meaning of the "una cum" Clause
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Mario,

OK, let's see if I understand your position. I'm a convicted sedevacantist (let's pretend, OK). By attending an SSPX Mass, I am being Janus-faced, hypocritical, deceitful to my own interior conviction; thereby, threatening, compromising, and neutralizing my conviction, ultimately ending up as a quasi-new church adherent.


By acknowledging that Benedict XVI is your pope, yes: "...which we offer thee in the first place for thy holy Catholic Church, praying that thou wilt be pleased to keep and guide her in peace and unity throughout the world; together with thy servant our Pope [here would be inserted Benedict XVI]......" | "...quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica; quam pacificare, custodire, adunare, et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N......"-Roman Missal 1947

_________________
Error, cui non resistur, approbatur; et Veritas, cum minime defensatur.


Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:46 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Una Cum
Edited to Delete Post

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Last edited by Teresa Ginardi on Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:59 am
Profile

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

Dear Teresa,

The SSPX is not saying the modernist inventions of Vatican II are Catholic either. One does not need to be a sede to hold that modernism is rampant in the novus ordo ( if so inclined i.e. the Church) . The SSPX is fighting against the revolution, granted they have not reached the conclusion that benedict is not pope, as you are well aware.

The una cum prayer is said in private by the priest, the name mentioned is not printed in the Missal, while all the other non .... N... prayers are printed, and are indeed public, and recited internally by the laymen in the pew. The ..n.. prayers ( una cum.. etc ), can, and are, omitted by the laymen in the pew.

So, while having read good Fr. Cekada's paper, I still fail to see his implications of assisting at a SSPX Mass that he has drawn. The SSPX are vocal at resisting the revolution, while the FSSP, and indult clergy do have blurred lines in this regard.

In Xto,
Vincent


Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:38 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 am
Posts: 138
New post Re: The Meaning of the "una cum" Clause
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Mario,

OK, let's see if I understand your position. I'm a convicted sedevacantist (let's pretend, OK).


What is a "convicted" sedevacantist? Or, for that matter, what is a non-convicted one? This neo-sede talk makes my head spin!


AMW


Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:35 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 am
Posts: 138
New post Re: Una Cum
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
If I'm understanding Mario correctly, (good chance, I'm not)


Well, I hope you're not :)

Quote:
You have taken the position that Benedict is not the pope, that new church is not the Catholic Church. That principle, that position implies certain behavior; else, what's the point in holding it, painful as that may be at times.


Yes, it does imply certain behaviour. We are to remain faithful to the Church. How is that determined? By obeying the laws of the Church. What law has been contravened in attending the Mass in which an undeclared heretic is prayed for, by someone who mistakenly believes he is pope? None. So what should we do next to see how we should govern our behaviour? Well, we could look to the Saints for example. St. Thomas More, who, to fortify himself to refuse to take the oath of supremacy, received the sacraments from a priest who had taken the oath. (He had not been condemned to death at this stage.) He also stated that he had never discouraged anyone else from taking the oath. "Never discouraged anyone", not even wife or child? And yet we have an eight page thread over yonder, and this one now resurrected, in which sedevacantists are not only being encouraged to "stand up and be counted" as principled and consistent by refusing to receive Catholic sacraments, but accused of being "pernicous liars" and guilty of "grave sin" if they do not!

Then perhaps, St Hypathius ,who refused to pray for Nestorius in the Canon, might give us a healthy insight into how to govern our "behaviour":

"His ordinary, Eulalius, while refusing the heresy of Nestorius, rebuked the holy monk Hypathius for withdrawing from communion with their Nestorius, who was their patriarch, before the judgment of a council. Hypathius replied: "...I cannot insert his name in the Canon of the Mass because a heresiarch is not worthy of the title of pastor in the Church; do what you will with me, I am ready to suffer anything, and nothing will make me change my behaviour." (Petits Bollandistes, 17th June)...

"...But when some sedevacantists withdraw from communion with other sedevacantists on the grounds that the latter remain in communion not with Karol Wojtyla but with certain traditional clergy or laity that the first group consider heretics...they are quite mistaken to quote the case of St Hypathius in their favour. For Hypathius, though he withdrew from communion with Nestorius, clearly did not withdraw from communion with Eulalius, who, though orthodox, mistakenly thought it right to remain provisionally in communion with Nestorius until the Church should have formally pronounced him a heretic." ("Heresy in History" J.S. Daly)


Or we can do as Mario suggests, and refuse communion with, and the sacraments from, those with whom we disagree on a disputed matter, and hope that God understands and will supply the graces that He supplies through his Church to us, as we gather around our coffee table in the sitting room. I call that tempting God, because I believe the SSPX and their sacraments are Catholic. For there to be any force in the argument against their reception, it has to be shown that they are either heretics or schismatics. This has been alluded to but not demonstrated, and this is what needs to be addressed. The rest is just a time-waster, and an unnecessary and bitter attack on one's neighbour.

Quote:
The sede principle holds new church is not the Catholic Church: hence, it wants nothing to do with new church. It wants nothing to do with those that hold that it is the Catholic Church (except to convert them to the true Catholic Church), however, mistaken those individuals are.


The SSPX want as little as possible to do with the New Church too, which is why they limit their communion to that which they think is compulsory without sin, and deplore and resist any doctrine that conflicts with tradition. And they incur the wrath of some sedes for this very departure from novelties, who would seem to prefer the SSPX to embrace the Novus Ordo for the sake of consistency, rather than resist!

Quote:
It does not pass judgment on the Catholicity of said individuals.


Doesn't it? They may not come out and say so clearly, because such a heinous claim needs to be supported by conclusive evidence, but their whole position implies that these people they avoid like the plague, and whom they encourage others to avoid also, under the penalty of "grave sin", can't be Catholic. In fact Mario did say this much in the other thread:

Quote:
And now I think we have finally hit on the real problem. So are they heretics, schismatics or both?


Objectively, I think they're both. Subjectively (kind of like the mistaken lady), they're Catholics. Their intention is to be Catholic, like the lady's intention is to be with her husband. As far as intention goes, then, I would consider them Catholics; but materially, I would consider them not Catholic.

Quote:
The sede principle treats the crisis in the Church as a war, and wants nothing to do with those that equivocate or excuse.


So does that justify an attack on those within the fold? To treat the SSPX as the enemy, you first of all have to prove they are the enemy, don't you? The Church Herself "excuses" genuine mistakes in times of crisis and confusion. "Equivocation" is an unsubstantiated charge.

Quote:
If I'm reading Mario correctly, the principle you hold is not negotiable. Mario would, perhaps, liken sedes attending una-cum to that class of politicians that are pro-life "I'm personally opposed, but .....".


The principle doesn't die by attendance at the SSPX. Well, perhaps it does in the eyes of those "convicted" sedes who are determined to be scandalised, but that is their problem. Abortion is against the law of the Church. There are no "buts" involved. Sedevacantism is a private judgement. If one can't see the difference, then that person should refrain from advising others how to "behave".

Quote:
Sedevacantism is kind of like "the hill to die for" ... you don't lay down your weapons when it gets inconvenient.


Catholicism is the "the hill to die for". You don't throw away the weapons and armour the Church provides in Her sacraments to fight the battle. Nor do you turn your guns on your fellow Catholics who are also ready to die for the Church because they don't run as fast as you or discern the enemy as quickly as you do. You help them.

Quote:
Vince, as to the Great Western Schism and the Arian Heresy: St. Vincent Ferrer didn't treat his position as 'optional'


And neither do sedevacantists who don't adopt Mario's view. They just don't treat a private judgement as compulsory for those who aren't convinced of it.

Quote:
I'm not saying that I agree with it


Thank heavens for that! :)

AMW


Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:13 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Una Cum
Vince, AMWills,

I do not agree with the current "una-cum" declaration making the rounds in the last few years. It's not my "hill to die for". I prefer to stay within the Mystical Body of Christ, and stay united with other Catholics whenever I can in this current crisis. The SSPX, IMO, remains steadfastly opposed to all the novelties emanating from VII. They remain a beacon of light to many of us confused Catholics throughout the world. They are attempting to keep alive the visibility of the Church and its jurisdictional hierarchy.

That being said, I would like Mario to further explain his list of why "una cum" is not the complete reason for non-assistance at a "una-cum" Mass. He's made that assertion: my posts were simply proddings to have him explicate his reasonings further.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:56 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Una Cum
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Vince, AMWills,

I do not agree with the current "una-cum" declaration making the rounds in the last few years. It's not my "hill to die for". I prefer to stay within the Mystical Body of Christ, and stay united with other Catholics whenever I can in this current crisis. The SSPX, IMO, remains steadfastly opposed to all the novelties emanating from VII. They remain a beacon of light to many of us confused Catholics throughout the world. They are attempting to keep alive the visibility of the Church and its jurisdictional hierarchy.

That being said, I would like Mario to further explain his list of why "una cum" is not the complete reason for non-assistance at a "una-cum" Mass. He's made that assertion: my posts were simply proddings to have him explicate his reasonings further.


Teresa,

While that might be what they are attempting to do...their position in no way accomplishes that goal. Their position is confused at best...and that confusion is what must be tolerated. Didn't you once say that the abolition of the Friday abstinence was devastating to Catholics? They have accepted this change...it’s not a good thing.

Robert


Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:39 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: Una Cum
Robert Bastaja wrote:

While that might be what they are attempting to do...their position in no way accomplishes that goal. Their position is confused at best...and that confusion is what must be tolerated. Didn't you once say that the abolition of the Friday abstinence was devastating to Catholics? They have accepted this change...it’s not a good thing.

Robert


Robert,

The SSPX does all they can to encourage the Friday abstinence, and the traditional Lenten fast. However, because of their acceptation of jurisdictional changes since VII, they reluctantly know they cannot enforce an individual's non-compliance to the traditional laws of fast and abstinence as grave sins. Further, Robert, certainly the SSPX has some difficulties reconciling some of their current positions with accepted Catholic teaching.

However, "those who live in glass houses .... ", do you think the sede position is not laboring under the same problems: to wit, Robert, as I've asked a number of times, where's the Church for the sede, in its visible, jurisdictional, hierarchical structure. The sede responds that this is wrapped in mystery; and, so it may be. The SSPX says, also, that their position involves God's mysterious ways; and, so it may be.

Mario, has taken up the position of public defender on this forum for the position that attendance at an "una-cum" Mass (usually meaning SSPX) by a sede may involve grave sin. Mario, has further stated, that it's not just the "una-cum" phrase, but substantially more than this, that puts SSPX, et. al., off-limits for attendance. I think Mario needs to lay out the whole picture as clearly as possible, because he seems to have gone off-topic of "una-cum" and brought up this idea of other "things" bearing on non-attendance. Mario, may have jumped to "other issues" because his defense of "una-cum"/grave sin has been shown to be without merit.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:07 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:

While that might be what they are attempting to do...their position in no way accomplishes that goal. Their position is confused at best...and that confusion is what must be tolerated. Didn't you once say that the abolition of the Friday abstinence was devastating to Catholics? They have accepted this change...it’s not a good thing.

Robert


Robert,

The SSPX does all they can to encourage the Friday abstinence, and the traditional Lenten fast. However, because of their acceptation of jurisdictional changes since VII, they reluctantly know they cannot enforce an individual's non-compliance to the traditional laws of fast and abstinence as grave sins.


Teresa,

Nor can they enforce attendance at only the traditional Mass...but (to their credit) they do anyway.

Quote:
Further, Robert, certainly the SSPX has some difficulties reconciling some of their current positions with accepted Catholic teaching.


Yes, huge difficulties and contradictions.

Quote:
However, "those who live in glass houses .... ", do you think the sede position is not laboring under the same problems: to wit, Robert, as I've asked a number of times, where's the Church for the sede, in its visible, jurisdictional, hierarchical structure.


And your questions have been answered...the correct position can involve no contradictions...mysteries, yes...contradictions, no.

Quote:
The sede responds that this is wrapped in mystery; and, so it may be. The SSPX says, also, that their position involves God's mysterious ways; and, so it may be.


And contradictions....the sedevacantist position is not a series of contradictions.


Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:30 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:43 pm
Posts: 25
New post Re: Una Cum
AMWills wrote:
Doesn't it? They may not come out and say so clearly, because such a heinous claim needs to be supported by conclusive evidence, but their whole position implies that these people they avoid like the plague, and whom they encourage others to avoid also, under the penalty of "grave sin", can't be Catholic. In fact Mario did say this much in the other thread:

Quote:
And now I think we have finally hit on the real problem. So are they heretics, schismatics or both?

Mario wrote:
Objectively, I think they're both. Subjectively (kind of like the mistaken lady), they're Catholics. Their intention is to be Catholic, like the lady's intention is to be with her husband. As far as intention goes, then, I would consider them Catholics; but materially, I would consider them not Catholic.


Mario, what does this mean? What does it matter what you think their intentions are? An Episcopalian may think they are Catholic, but we all know they're not. We do not need to define this in the objective/subjective. They are simply outside the Church. The same with the SSPX; let's dispose with the objective/subjective terminology - are the SSPX Catholic or are they heretics and schismatics?

In Xto,
Clement


Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:56 am
Posts: 46
Location: In Partibus Infidelium...
New post Subjectivism of Sedevacantism and Una Cum Masses
AMWills wrote:
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
If I'm understanding Mario correctly, (good chance, I'm not)


Well, I hope you're not :)

Quote:
You have taken the position that Benedict is not the pope, that new church is not the Catholic Church. That principle, that position implies certain behavior; else, what's the point in holding it, painful as that may be at times.


Yes, it does imply certain behaviour. We are to remain faithful to the Church. How is that determined? By obeying the laws of the Church. What law has been contravened in attending the Mass in which an undeclared heretic is prayed for, by someone who mistakenly believes he is pope? None.


Hold on a sec:

Behaviour: Refusing communion and submission with/to someone whom one believes is their lawful and legitimate head/superior - is potentially, if not sufficiently, schismatic.

There is a law that manifest heretics hold no position in the Church, as already demonstrated here on Bellarmine, and that obedience is not due them, nor are they to be considered as members of Christ who, by their actions, demonstrate themselves not to be. Such consideration and communion would imply, at least, a common belief and submission to the erroneous beliefs, or disbelief, of the one who has so separated themselves by a false character of belief, infidelity, would imply subscribing to that. If I say that Benedict is my pope, I subscribe to him as my lawful and legitimate superior and rule of faith, at least implicitly. Now, if I did this believing that he was, the sin would be of less gravity for me, but if I knew that the man held no such office, commanded no such submission, and was by no means my superior, let alone the head of the Church, and I stated that he was my pope, implying all of the above, then indeed, I would be a liar, unless my position is actually altered, which, assuming it has not, or I would at least be guilty of deception, let alone the recognition as a rule of faith a corrupted "rule" of faith.

Quote:
“… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” -St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 30

“...Now when he (the Pope) is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…” -St. Francis De Sales, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306

“...it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church." -Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896


Alrighty now, Benedict has, at least, by his actions, demonstrated that he is a heretic, he may be recognized and condemned as such. Therefore, when Benedict XVI was shown to be an explicit heretic, he fell from whatever office or dignity that he had in the Church, and was thus severed from its communion. Therefore, to recognize that this man, who has fallen from the Church and from all offices in it, as a successor of the apostles, which he can't be by virtue of his invalid consecration and manifest heresy, when one knows that it is not within the realm of Catholic possibility, is to demonstrate belief in something that is not believed, is deception on the part of the one who acts thus, would, then, be a lie. The issue at stake in Cekada's article was of a SEDEVACANTIST attending an "una cum" mass offered in union with Benedict XVI, one whom the SEDEVACANTIST does not profess communion with, therefore, for one who holds that a man is not the pope, to say that he does hold the man, which he does not believe is pope, is pope is a lie and a deception. And THAT is why there could be sin involved in participation in such a mass.

Now, the law of the Church which is being contravened?
Quote:
Galatians 1:8-9: “But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”

Pope Felix III: “Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”

Pope St. Martin I, Canon 18, Lateran Council:"If anyone does not with mind and lips reject and anathematize all abominable heretics together with their impious writings, even to the single least portion, let such a person be condemned."

St. Peter Canisius: "... he is truly a Christian who thoroughly condemns and detests the Jewish, Mohammedan, and the heretical cults and sects." (St. Canisius Catholic Cate-chism, Dillingen, 1560, Question no. 1)


So what should we do next to see how we should govern our behaviour?

Quote:
Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 4), March 23, 1875: “They [the faithful] should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings. They should shun their writings and all contact with them. They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith...”

St. Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise III, #34: "Flee from such men as much as you can; avoid with a wholesome caution those who adhere to their mischievous contact. Their word does eat as does a cancer; their conversation advances like a contagion; their noxious and envenomed persuasion kills worse than persecution itself. "

Pope St. Leo I, Letter 162: "And hence, if there are any who disagree with these heaven-inspired decisions, let them be left to their own opinions and depart from the unity of the Church with that perverse sect which they have chosen. For it can in no wise be that men who dare to speak against divine mysteries are associated in any communion with us. Let them pride themselves on the emptiness of their talk and boast of the cleverness of their arguments against the Faith..."


Quote:
The SSPX want as little as possible to do with the New Church too, which is why they limit their communion to that which they think is compulsory without sin, and deplore and resist any doctrine that conflicts with tradition. And they incur the wrath of some sedes for this very departure from novelties, who would seem to prefer the SSPX to embrace the Novus Ordo for the sake of consistency, rather than resist!


The problem there:

They recognize Novus ordo hierarchy as valid, true, and Catholic. They recognize Novus ordos as fellow Catholics hold the faith. They refuse communion with these hierarchs whom that "recognize" and with some other novus ordos. This is an act of schism on the part of those priests who do this, yet there is no set standard for all SSPX priests, but for many, this can easily apply.

Their intention is to be Catholic, like the lady's intention is to be with her husband. As far as intention goes, then, I would consider them Catholics; but materially, I would consider them not Catholic.

There is no good intention in refusing communion with fellow recognized members of the Christ.

Quote:
The sede principle treats the crisis in the Church as a war, and wants nothing to do with those that equivocate or excuse.

Quote:
So does that justify an attack on those within the fold? To treat the SSPX as the enemy, you first of all have to prove they are the enemy, don't you? The Church Herself "excuses" genuine mistakes in times of crisis and confusion. "Equivocation" is an unsubstantiated charge.


I don't think they are "the enemy", just collaborators.

Quote:
Sedevacantism is a private judgement. If one can't see the difference, then that person should refrain from advising others how to "behave".


It is the recognition of fact: the chair of peter is empty. Either the chair is indeed occupied by Benedict XVI, or no. Sedes hold that he is not. If, then, it is just a "private judgement" "private interpretation of events and truths", sounds familiar, then it is subjective, and the objective truth of it cannot, then, be known. Then no one can be held to either standard, that of adherance or non adherence, no guilt can be imputed to either side for violating either standard because some people are confused.

Quote:
They just don't treat a private judgement as compulsory for those who aren't convinced of it.


But I kinda like to think that the objective truth is objective, and some things are true despite the knowledge of individuals. I kinda think that original sin exists on everyone's soul at birth, even the infants who don't realize it's existence, that gravity binds all things to the earth whether the things are cognizant of it or not.

Quote:
"...what does this mean? What does it matter what you think their intentions are? An Episcopalian may think they are Catholic, but we all know they're not. We do not need to define this in the objective/subjective. They are simply outside the Church. The same with the SSPX; let's dispose with the objective/subjective terminology - are the SSPX Catholic or are they heretics and schismatics?


I agree, and I believe that it may be the latter.

_________________
Error, cui non resistur, approbatur; et Veritas, cum minime defensatur.


Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:25 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: The Meaning of the "una cum" Clause
AMWills wrote:

This neo-sede talk makes my head spin!



AMWills,

I'm not a neo-sede, just a Catholic trying to maintain my Catholic Faith in union with other Catholics doing the same during these challenging times. :?

A little roll call here: am I correct in assuming that Mario Derksen, Robert Bastaja, Grand Inquisitor, and, maybe, Clement are arguing/supporting the same position: anti-una-cum (SSPX, et. al.)?

Thanks.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:50 pm
Profile

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


Dear Teresa,

You posted :
Quote:
If you Vince, as a sede, think new church is not the Catholic Church, Benedict is not the pope, the new code of canon law is not in effect, etc., etc., what behavior do you exhibit to support your position and when? When it's convenient only, and when not; what then? If I'm reading Mario correctly, the principle you hold is not negotiable. Mario would, perhaps, liken sedes attending una-cum to that class of politicians that are pro-life "I'm personally opposed, but .....". Sedevacantism is kind of like "the hill to die for" ... you don't lay down your weapons when it gets inconvenient.

Vince, as to the Great Western Schism and the Arian Heresy: St. Vincent Ferrer didn't treat his position as 'optional', and those with St. Athanasius were the Catholics, after all. Once the Arian Crisis passed, those Arian prelates and faithful had to adhere to true Catholic dogma. St. Athanasius, I suspect, would not have attended a Mass of a 'semi-Arian'.




My point on both references has been completely missed. ( It is doubtless, I was not clear :) )

First the Great Western Schism :

All claimants to the papacy publicly excommunicated the other claimants. Where was the visible church? Granted in this mess, God did have a true Pontiff, but, who knew who it was? What Mass to go to? What bishops and priests to seek the Sacraments? Was there no acceptable Worship offered to God during this 40 year period? Also- were those backing the wrong pontif non-Catholics?


Hint: When the schism was corrected, both sides appointments to Bishop were accepted as valid by the Church.


Arianism:. I was not referring to a semi-Arian prelate and attendance at his mass. Lets put this into modern perspective: As a traditional Catholic, I would not attend a semi-Modernist novus ordo mass either. Doubtless either would St. Athanasius attend a mass offered by a semi-arian.


I was referring to St. Athanasius attending a Mass that a non publicly declared ( possible) Arian bishop would be named in the canon, offered by a priest that was making every attempt to remain orthodox.


Do you have any evidence he avoided such a mass?

In Xto,
Vincent


Last edited by Vince Sheridan on Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:33 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:

I was referring to St. Athanaisus attending a Mass that a non publicly declared ( possible) Arian bishop name would be named in the canon.


Do you have any evidence he avoided such a mass?




No evidence, Vince, for my statement. I think we're talking past each other. I'm on your side of this issue; albeit, as a non-sede. My prior posts to Mario should all be taken as Mario speaking; at least, that's what I'm trying to elicit from Mario. Is he, indeed, claiming all the statements in my posts? Am I reflecting his thoughts accurately? Are there more issues he wants to add to the list, etc., etc. He seems to have expanded the discussion from solely 'una-cum' to now encompass a larger field. Can we get all the anti-una-cum cards on the table, and debate them coherently without jumping from issue to issue.

Edited: Prior posts referred to have been deleted due to misleading / misdirecting content.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Last edited by Teresa Ginardi on Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:12 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 68
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Mario Derksen wrote:
I don't have "the answers" either. All I can say is that out of all the possible options one can take, sedevacantism is the only one that doesn't run into contradictions, only unanswered questions. The Novus Ordo position is contradictory; the indult position is; the SSPX position is; sedevacantism is not.


Mario,

You seem to be equating the Novus Ordo and the Indult (which is no more), with the SSPX, Independents, and sedevacantists. Isn't the Novus Ordo what we are fighting? The problem with the Novus Ordo is hardly due to contradictions.

Robert


Robert, I don't know why you say I "equated" all of these. I was merely pointing out that out of all the possible options one possibly can take (not should but can), all of them run into contradictions except sedevacantism. Regarding the Novus Ordo position, what I meant was that you run into contradictions because the Novus Ordo position holds (even if they don't put it like that) that the Church's teachings are changeable --> contradiction. The SSPX position holds that the Pope can be Pope but without genuine authority (what he teaches, promulgates, etc., is subject to review by the SSPX and traditional Catholics) --> contradiction ("Denzinger Protestantism"). The "indult" position - now perhaps best called "Motu position" - is the kind espoused by the FSSP and Campos, and is contradictory because the liturgical rites they use do not express the faith of their church. They once had a problem with Rome when it came to the question of when a man becomes a cleric. According to the Novus Ordo, it doesn't happen till you are ordained a deacon (they have done away with the subdiaconate and minor orders). This contradicts the FSSP's liturgical practice. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand one becomes a cleric upon receiving tonsure.) So, more contradictions. Sedevacantism has lots of unanswered questions, but I see no contradictions.


Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:45 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 68
Location: Ohio, USA
New post Re: The Meaning of the "una cum" Clause
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Mario,

OK, let's see if I understand your position. I'm a convicted sedevacantist (let's pretend, OK). By attending an SSPX Mass, I am being Janus-faced, hypocritical, deceitful to my own interior conviction; thereby, threatening, compromising, and neutralizing my conviction, ultimately ending up as a quasi-new church adherent.

The SSPX is simply the good-cop side of the One World Church: their acceptance of Benedict as Pope, new code of Canon Law, new saints, new fast and abstinence rules, and new church as the Roman Catholic Church, makes them part of new church; which they say they are not excommunicated from, anyway.

Additionally, since I am bound by one of the precepts of Holy Mother Church to give support to my church or pastor, my donations are, indirectly, helping to fund the propagation of new church: now, most especially, by training new church priests to say the Old Mass.

So, una-cum, and other issues included, I, as a sede (pretend, Mario), attending an SSPX Mass (or valid Motu Mass) give witness to my conscience and others, that the revolution in the Church is essentially unimportant, as long as I can get valid sacraments. By so doing, over time, I will ultimately accept new church.

Is this what you're saying, Mario? :?:


Teresa, the reason for my being here is not to find moral fault with you but to see whether or not Fr. Cekada is right in saying that a sedevacantist cannot go to an una cum Mass. And as with everything else, the morality of an action is determined by applying the right principles to the applicable circumstances. And let us remember to keep the emotional out of it. That every sede who goes to an una cum Mass has good intentions is irrelevant to the point at issue. As I have said elsewhere, who knows where life will take me - I might end up with only an una cum Mass available in my area myself. So, I would not be doing myself any favors if I argued this side for the wrong reasons. What I'm doing is defending Fr. Cekada's article to see if it can stand up to the challenges of those who disagree with it. That's the best way to come to a knowledge of the truth. I think if this were a forum where almost everyone agreed with Fr. Cekada, I might take a John Lane position to see how far I would get with it. I really just want to know which side is right.

God bless you,

Mario


Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:09 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 68
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
So, your inferring that a SSPX Chapel is not Catholic? If so, your holding them in schism?


Emphasizing that I am not speaking about the people but about the chapel itself, yes, I would consider it not Catholic. (And I used to be an SSPX adherent myself.) I don't see how I could consider the SSPX as an organization to be Catholic. Their position (again, as opposed to the people, whom I generally consider to be mistaken Catholics) is schismatic and professes serious errors against the Catholic faith itself. I think this becomes evident if you take their position regarding the Novus Ordo "Popes" and substitute "Pope St. Pius X" for Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. Of course I realize that the people are simply struggling to be Catholic in these insane times - but the position itself I cannot possibly consider Catholic.


Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:17 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 68
Location: Ohio, USA
New post Re: Una Cum
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Vince,

If I'm understanding Mario correctly, (good chance, I'm not), the sede position implies you have taken a certain position vis-a-vis the revolution in the Church. Now, whether Holy Mother Church has promulgated a decision regarding that crisis (that may be a long time coming), you, Vince, have a principle at stake. You have taken the position that Benedict is not the pope, that new church is not the Catholic Church. That principle, that position implies certain behavior; else, what's the point in holding it, painful as that may be at times.


So far, yes, that's what I'm saying. (BTW, this is all getting to be very time consuming for me; I apologize if I take my time in responding or don't respond at all to some posts.)

Quote:
The sede principle holds new church is not the Catholic Church: hence, it wants nothing to do with new church. It wants nothing to do with those that hold that it is the Catholic Church (except to convert them to the true Catholic Church), however, mistaken those individuals are. It does not pass judgment on the Catholicity of said individuals. The sede principle treats the crisis in the Church as a war, and wants nothing to do with those that equivocate or excuse.


I would object to that. It is not true (in my case, at least, and in practically every sedevacantist's case that I know of) that sedevacantists want "nothing to do with those that hold that it is the Catholic Church." I consider SSPX adherents my fellow-Catholics unless about a specific individual I have sufficient reason to believe that he is not simply mistaken but actually pertinacious in holding to something he knows to be heretical or schismatic. (I have never come across someone like that.)

The una cum Mass presents a problem for sedevacantists for the reason that Benedict's name is publicly a part of the very Mass being offered. When it comes to forming a decision regarding the state of the priest and the laymen (are they mistaken Catholics or pertinacious schismatics or heretics?), it is easy to come to the conclusion that virtually all of them are Catholics but just confused. However, the Mass itself is a different matter. Whether the priest be in good faith or not, he is using Benedict's name in the canon and thereby, quite objectively, acknowledging him to be the Head of the True Church, the cornerstone of orthodoxy, etc., which the sede does not in any way believe. So the sede has a decision to make: May I still assist? Does my active participation imply that I agree with the idea that Benedict is the Pope? Am I "testifying", so to speak, by my participation, that he is the Pope? John Lane and John Daly and many others have argued no, and they have raised good points; Fr. Cekada, Bp. Sanborn and others have argues yes, and they have raised good points.

I am on here now trying to play "Socrates" and see if Fr. Cekada's position can withstand the objections of many people on this board. I'd like to know the answer because at some point, I myself might be faced with an una cum Mass or no Mass at all. (Confessions are a separate issue...)


Mario


Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:30 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 68
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
So, while having read good Fr. Cekada's paper, I still fail to see his implications of assisting at a SSPX Mass that he has drawn. The SSPX are vocal at resisting the revolution, while the FSSP, and indult clergy do have blurred lines in this regard.


Fr. Cekada is saying that this has nothing to do with it. Fr. Cekada is saying that by your active participation at an una cum Mass, you are ipso facto acknowledging as Pope a man you believe to be an impostor, breaking church law, implicitly professing a false religion, etc., etc. (see his summary on the last page). Fr. Cekada may be wrong on this - but the SSPX's resistance to the revolution is irrelevant to that particular question.

I have asked John Lane to tell me (and perhaps he has by now and I haven't seen it yet) why it is that resistance to the revolution is his "litmus test" for considering someone a Catholic (John, please pardon if I am mistakenly misrepresenting your view) while ignoring other errors against the faith (in the SSPX). I am not against considering SSPX adherents Catholics (not at all!), I just think that Novus Ordos in good faith ought to be extended the same courtesy. Because though the SSPX upholds Church teachings that Novus Ordos implicitly deny (on ecumenism, religious liberty, ecclesiology, etc.), the Novus Ordos, by contrast, uphold Church teachings that the SSPX denies (authority of the Pope, infallibility of canonizations, nature of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, etc.). Why is one error more tolerable than another?

God bless,

Mario


Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:41 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 am
Posts: 138
New post Re: The Meaning of the "una cum" Clause
Teresa Ginardi wrote:

AMWills,
I'm not a neo-sede, just a Catholic trying to maintain my Catholic Faith in union with other Catholics doing the same during these challenging times. :?.


I know (from previous posts) you're not, Teresa. Your role play (with the use of their terms) was just far too convincing :)

AMW


Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:38 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: The Meaning of the "una cum" Clause
AMWills wrote:
Teresa Ginardi wrote:

AMWills,
I'm not a neo-sede, just a Catholic trying to maintain my Catholic Faith in union with other Catholics doing the same during these challenging times. :?.


I know (from previous posts) you're not, Teresa. Your role play (with the use of their terms) was just far too convincing :)

AMW


Agreed, AMW, you are right. Rereading those posts, it's a little scary. I'll be far more careful in the future. :oops:

Maybe, those posts should be deleted, what do you think AMW?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:09 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Una Cum
AMWills, et. al.,

My prior posts attempting to summarize Mario Derksen's position have been deleted as the posts were, indeed, as AMWills indicated, misleading, at best. Subsequent posters have quoted some passages of these deleted posts. It would be best to ignore the quoted passages, and let Mario discover the falsity of the 'anti-una-cum' position through his own methods.

My apologies.

Teresa

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:31 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 68
Location: Ohio, USA
New post Re: Una Cum
Clement wrote:

Mario, what does this mean? What does it matter what you think their intentions are? An Episcopalian may think they are Catholic, but we all know they're not. We do not need to define this in the objective/subjective. They are simply outside the Church. The same with the SSPX; let's dispose with the objective/subjective terminology - are the SSPX Catholic or are they heretics and schismatics?

In Xto,
Clement


But the Episcopalian Church is a sect condemned by the Church. The SSPX is not. The SSPX position is clearly schismatic, as far as I can tell. As far as the people go, to say they are genuinely schismatic would require one to say they are pertinacious. But this is simply not true (at least for the ones I know), and to say otherwise would be an injustice on my part. Going back to my analogy, the woman who is mistaken about the identity of the man she thinks is her husband cannot be considered an adulteress even though she is, objectively, living with a man who is not her husband.


Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
marioderksen wrote:
Fr. Cekada's argument that the Holy Mass is offered in union with Benedict XVI is merely one single point out of the ten he makes. It is point no. seven. In other words, even assuming that the "una cum" clause in no way makes the Mass being offered in union with Benedict, this still does not get rid of the other problems. Here is Fr. Cekada's summary. The sedevacantist who attends an una cum Mass, Fr. argues:

(1) Tells a pernicious lie.
(2) Professes communion with heretics.
(3) Recognizes as legitimate the Ecumenical, One-World Church.
(4) Implicitly professes a false religion.


Each of these is actually one point, which is that the layman necessarily ratifies whatever choice the priest makes in the place where the book has an “N”. But this is what we deny, and in fact you have accepted this yourself a week ago by agreeing that you could assist at the Mass offered by the priest in New Guinea who prays for Pius XI in the Canon instead of the true pope, Pius XII. If it were really the case that the layman necessarily ratifies whatever the priest says in that prayer, then no properly informed layman could assist at such a Mass, because despite the lack of evil consequences and despite the priest’s complete innocence in the matter, the layman in the pew knows that Pius XI is not pope any longer and therefore, if he says that he is pope, he lies. This argument is apodictic, as far as I can see.

Once the force of this argument is felt, it will be clear why the whole "schism" and other moral mud-slinging has been inserted into the case. Without it, the error of the priest can be considered in the clear light of reason; with it, the reader's mind is severely prejudiced and less able to reason dispassionately. Bishop Sanborn started it, of course, by equating such a Mass with JP2 standing in the sanctuary. "It's horrible" he wrote. Yes, it is a horrible thought. The only thing is, Bishop, that JP2 was not standing in our sanctuary, and no argument of yours managed to place him there.

marioderksen wrote:
(5) Condones a violation of Church law.

I love this one. A doubtful law does not bind. What about a law that nobody can even cite? Could that bind? The whole claim is preposterous.


marioderksen wrote:
(6) Participates in a sin.

A sin is a violation of the law. There is no violation of the law (and there isn’t any law anyway…), and Fr. Cekada cannot even begin to make a case that there is. Asserting something doesn’t make it true.

marioderksen wrote:
(7) Offers Mass in union with the heretic/false
pope Ratzinger.

No, he doesn’t, and if we ignore De la Taille, as Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada both do when it suits, there are no authorities for this baseless notion. (And de la Taille is himself singularly unclear on this point, as I have shown elsewhere in unpublished work. If I ever get time to present the case publicly I doubt anybody will have an argument against me in relation to it.)

marioderksen wrote:
(8 ) Recognizes the usurper of an ecclesiastical office.

Now we are back to the main already demolished point – the assertion that the layman necessarily ratifies whatever choice the priest makes at the point where the book has an “N”.

marioderksen wrote:
(9) Offers an occasion for the sin of scandal

No scandal is given, and as far as I have discovered after forty+ years, none ever has been taken. Yet I can cite actual cases of scandal taken from Bishop Sanborn’s anti-una-cum nonsense.

This whole claim of scandal given by those who assist at Holy Mass in accord with their clear duty is reminiscent of Pinocchio, who as he walked to school on the first morning, “began to imagine a thousand things in his little brain, and to build a thousand castles in the air, one more beautiful than the other.” Anyway, we all know how much trouble that led to.


marioderksen wrote:
(10) In the case of Masses offered by “resistance”
clergy (SSPX, its affiliates and many independent clergy) participates in gravely illicit Masses and condones the sin of schism

I’ve already demonstrated, some years ago, the falsity of this facile and really rather vicious reasoning, and unless my arguments are addressed I think I’m entitled to maintain that they are unanswerable. In any case, I feel no moral or intellectual pressure to engage in a debate in which the other side serenely ignores my arguments.

For the sake of ease of referral, here is the section of my article dealing with the essence of that claim:

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

ii.) "Objectively schismatic"?

Equally problematical is Fr. Sanborn's use of the terminology, "objectively schismatic." What does Fr. Sanborn mean by this term? He does not define it. The closest he gets is the following, "If he [the priest] means well, i.e., he has a good intention and does not know that he is doing wrong, then he commits no personal sin. But objectively it is a sinful act." Thus it appears that Fr. Sanborn is saying that the act of naming John Paul II as pope in the Canon is the matter of schism. Or perhaps he is arguing that there is true schism in such an act, but that it is merely material (i.e. innocent).

However, as Cardinal Billot explains, in relation to heresy, "…a material sin is said to exist only when what belongs to the nature of the sin takes place materially, but without advertence or deliberate will. But the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium and this does not take place in the case mentioned [i.e. when a Catholic accidentally adheres to an heretical proposition], since this is a simple error of fact concerning what the rule dictates. And therefore there is no scope for heresy, even materially." [26]

And in speaking of schism, Billot draws a parallel with heresy. "The second condition required for adults [to be members of the Church] is that the bond of Catholic communion be not impeded or dissolved - a breach that can occur in either of two ways. The first is by the individual's own act, i.e. by schism concerning which the same judgement applies, in due proportion, as applies to heresy. The second is by sentence of ecclesiastical authority..." [27]

The same principle applies, mutatis mutandis, to a refusal of communion with fellow Catholics. The various splits amongst traditional Catholics do not constitute true schism precisely because there exists no mind or will to sever communion with those subject to the pope, but rather a refusal of communion based on judgements, whether sound or unsound, that the other group is not truly Catholic or perhaps is gravely scandalous. In the absence of a true pope such splits are seemingly inevitable, but they are not necessarily "schisms."

Thus a man who places an act which involves one element of the matter of schism, without knowingly breaking the bond of communion, cannot be described as a "material schismatic." In the same way we do not call a man who falls off a cliff a "material suicide."

Therefore it is clear, as has already been proved, that adherence to a false pope, even though he is a public heretic, especially if this adherence is maintained precisely because he is believed to be the true pope, cannot constitute schism. In fact, one might say that it is the opposite of schism. Nor can it be said to constitute so-called material or objective schism, for where there is no pertinacity, there is no schism at all, either formal or material, as Billot explains. "Objective schism" may or may not be equivalent to "material schism," but in any case what is clear is that there is no sort of schism at all in the act of a priest who mentions John Paul II because he mistakenly believes that he is the pope.

Benedict XIV teaches, “…a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognises him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity.” [28]

Recalling St. Thomas’s eternal principle, “…in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental", we apply it to this teaching of Benedict XIV. The only possible conclusion is that when a priest inserts John Paul II’s name in the Sacred Canon in the mistaken belief that he is the pope, this is “the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity.” To call it, on the contrary, schism, is simply to miss the point.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:44 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
marioderksen wrote:
As a general rule, it is assumed that the people who go to a particular church are actually members of that religion or agree with what is going on there, unless they manifestly demonstrate the contrary. So, for example, I assume that people who are gathered in a Baptist church are Baptists. Though I understand that this may not be true for a few individuals, the general presumption is that they are Baptists. (Imagine the opposite claim: You have no reason to suppose that someone who worships at a Baptist church is Baptist. What are we to assume? That he's Methodist?)

Therefore, the general presumption is that someone who goes to an SSPX Mass is an adherent of the SSPX. This is not unreasonable, even in our times. (I think if you were to destroy this principle, everything would be thrown into confusion.) It therefore falls on the sedevacantist who goes there to prove that this assumption is not warranted.


I distinguish. That those who assist at Holy Mass are presumed to accept the celebrant as a fellow Catholic, properly ordained, etc.: I concede. That those who assist at Holy Mass are presumed to accept the entire theoretical position of the celebrant by which the latter seeks to explain the current universal and unprecedented chaos and distress in the Catholic Church: I deny.

Indeed, I think the proposal preposterous, and I add yet again, this would sufficiently explain the FACT that sensible men never thought of it, including Fr. Cekada, until decades after the See of Rome fell vacant. If this explanation of this fact is not accepted, another ought to be proffered.


marioderksen wrote:
Demonstrate that by assisting actively at an SSPX Mass, you are not professing communion with Benedict. I think that's a fair challenge.


The onus of proof is the other way. And in any case, I can’t prove a negative. I can only ask you to consider properly and form a reasonable judgement about what really is presumed by the faithful and what therefore must be overturned. And once again, in forming this judgement I remind you that the men by whom you are now being influenced did not themselves for several decades think that this imagined presumption did in fact arise. Indeed, they held the opposite as a definite and strong opinion, and regarded people who thought differently as decidedly unrealistic. It is therefore incumbent upon them, if they wish us to take them seriously, to say what they have discovered now that they did not know then, or alternatively, to state that their judgement was grossly defective in failing to see for several decades what they now realise is “obvious.” In the absence of either alternative, they have no right to be heard at all, frankly.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Last edited by Admin on Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:03 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
marioderksen wrote:
Emphasizing that I am not speaking about the people but about the chapel itself, yes, I would consider it not Catholic. (And I used to be an SSPX adherent myself.) I don't see how I could consider the SSPX as an organization to be Catholic. Their position (again, as opposed to the people, whom I generally consider to be mistaken Catholics) is schismatic and professes serious errors against the Catholic faith itself. I think this becomes evident if you take their position regarding the Novus Ordo "Popes" and substitute "Pope St. Pius X" for Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. Of course I realize that the people are simply struggling to be Catholic in these insane times - but the position itself I cannot possibly consider Catholic.


The word "Catholic" in this entire paragraph and in your other similar paragraphs is ambiguous.

What do you mean?

1. The chapel is not approved by the Church as a place in which a Catholic priest may offer Holy Mass?
2. The celebrant is not a Catholic?
3. The Mass itself is somehow "non-Catholic"?
4. The theological theory by which the celebrant seeks to explain the present ecclesiastical crisis is not true?
5. The theological theory by which the celebrant seeks to explain the crisis is not one which a Catholic could lawfully maintain?
6. The organisation to which the celebrant belongs is one which is not approved by the Church in such a manner that it is incumbent upon Catholics to avoid its members?

Or is there some other assertion you are making by inserting this undefined word "Catholic" into your propositions?

In any case, please state the proposition in an unambiguous form and give your reasons for it. Then we may consider them. Otherwise we are condemned to shadow-box.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:17 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
marioderksen wrote:
I have asked John Lane to tell me (and perhaps he has by now and I haven't seen it yet) why it is that resistance to the revolution is his "litmus test" for considering someone a Catholic (John, please pardon if I am mistakenly misrepresenting your view) while ignoring other errors against the faith (in the SSPX).


Actually, I think it is tolerably well known that I have put in and continue to put in a substantial effort against error, whether made by Modernists, sedevacantists, or SSPX members. Fr. Boulet's unfortunately very widely circulated booklet against sedevacantism has received no answer from any other source, and my own response runs to tens of thousands of words, of which something approaching fifteen thousand have been published in The Four Marks so far (interrupted by my duties for the past couple of issues). In addition, this forum contains very large slabs of argumentation directed exclusively at errors held by SSPX members, including for example in relation to the ordinary magisterium.

Anyway, since you're apparently not aware of these things, yes, you do misunderstand my "view." Here is my attitude in summary form: I don't like errors, either against the Faith or against the other truths presented in the theology manuals, and I don't like schisms either. I could be wrong about everything (other than things pertaining directly to the Faith, I hope!), but that is my "view."


marioderksen wrote:
I am not against considering SSPX adherents Catholics (not at all!), I just think that Novus Ordos in good faith ought to be extended the same courtesy. Because though the SSPX upholds Church teachings that Novus Ordos implicitly deny (on ecumenism, religious liberty, ecclesiology, etc.), the Novus Ordos, by contrast, uphold Church teachings that the SSPX denies (authority of the Pope, infallibility of canonizations, nature of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, etc.). Why is one error more tolerable than another?


Well, since there are distinct kinds of truths and different grades and bases of certitude, there are different levels and kinds of toleration we can and ought to maintain towards different errors in the concrete. But abstracting entirely from that, I don't tolerate any error per se.

Now, in order to get something useful done, we should be specific and clear. What exactly do you object to, specifically? The generalisations are worse than useless.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:36 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Una Cum
marioderksen wrote:
But the Episcopalian Church is a sect condemned by the Church. The SSPX is not. The SSPX position is clearly schismatic, as far as I can tell. As far as the people go, to say they are genuinely schismatic would require one to say they are pertinacious.


Actually, there are two elements which need to be verified, as Fr. Cekada himself highlighted very clearly in his defence of the CMRI many years ago. These are, 1. a refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or a refusal of communion with those who are subject to him, and, 2. pertinacity. The former is the matter of schism; the latter is the form. Since Benedict XVI is not the Roman Pontiff, no relation with him of any kind can be considered schism. This is obvious; it amazes me that anybody can think differently, especially Fr. Cekada, who must have noticed that he can find no authority which states that schism can arise from refusal of submission to somebody who is not the Roman Pontiff.

Further, and this is in itself unimportant but amusing, notice how the "objective/subjective" distinction only plays one way. The objective truth that Benedict is not pope gets placed to one side, in order to focus exclusively on the subjective position (not dispositions) of the sedeplenist traditionalist. Yet, having abstracted from the objective order, it miraculously and very helpfully appears again as part of the essential analysis of the subjective position of the sedeplenist traditionalist, which subjective position is said to be "objectively" schismatic. A more thorough confusion of terms it would be difficult to imagine. Perhaps in fifty or a hundred years it will be employed in seminary logic classes as a humorous instructive.

The truth remains, and I think this is quite obvious, that the subjective dispositions of the sedeplenist traditionalist are entirely Catholic, and the objective truth is that Benedict is not pope and therefore refusing subjection to him cannot by any colour of reason or law be considered to be schism.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:58 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:43 pm
Posts: 25
New post Re: Una Cum
marioderksen wrote:
Clement wrote:

Mario, what does this mean? What does it matter what you think their intentions are? An Episcopalian may think they are Catholic, but we all know they're not. We do not need to define this in the objective/subjective. They are simply outside the Church. The same with the SSPX; let's dispose with the objective/subjective terminology - are the SSPX Catholic or are they heretics and schismatics?

In Xto,
Clement


But the Episcopalian Church is a sect condemned by the Church. The SSPX is not. The SSPX position is clearly schismatic, as far as I can tell. As far as the people go, to say they are genuinely schismatic would require one to say they are pertinacious. But this is simply not true (at least for the ones I know), and to say otherwise would be an injustice on my part. Going back to my analogy, the woman who is mistaken about the identity of the man she thinks is her husband cannot be considered an adulteress even though she is, objectively, living with a man who is not her husband.



Mario, when the Church condemns a sect as schismatic it follows that the adherents of that sect are schismatics. Now you say that the SSPX position is schismatic yet those that adhere to this position are not. This makes schism meaningless. What is the value of the judgment that a position is "schismatic" if there are no actual schismatics? A schism has schismatics. Without any schismatics, you don't have a schism, do you? Also, if your way of seeing this is right, then there can be a "schismatic position" that people can hold without any penalties in any individual case at all. Every "schismatic" in your "schism" is innocent and not really a schismatic. This is a concept I've never come across - can you give me any examples of this happening before? We shouldn't need analogies because the history of the church is rich with relevant examples.

Just two more things for now that come to mind that concern me:

1. My understanding is that schism is the separation from the true church and the setting up of a church in opposition. Has the SSPX separated from the true church and what new church have they formed?

2. Do you believe that it is schismatic to refuse submission to a false pope? If so, can you please give me an authority?


In Xto,
Clement


Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:20 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 68
Location: Ohio, USA
New post Re: Una Cum
Clement wrote:
Mario, when the Church condemns a sect as schismatic it follows that the adherents of that sect are schismatics.


Yes, but the SSPX hasn't been so condemned.

Quote:
Now you say that the SSPX position is schismatic yet those that adhere to this position are not. This makes schism meaningless. What is the value of the judgment that a position is "schismatic" if there are no actual schismatics? A schism has schismatics. Without any schismatics, you don't have a schism, do you?


That's why it's so important to make the proper distinctions. Schism, like any sin, is an act of the will. The SSPX presents a very difficult case, as we have to take into account the confusion we finds ourselves in, and what we have here is people refusing submission to a man who is NOT the Pope but whom they believe to be the Pope. I affirm the following:

(1) The SSPX position which says that in our times, we must refuse submission to the Pope, is wrong and schismatic. (Of course they don't put it like that, but it's essentially what they're saying.)
(2) The SSPX position which says that Benedict XVI is the Pope is false.
(3) The SSPX refuses submission to Benedict XVI.
(4) SSPX adherents (i.e. the people) are in fact not refusing submission to a real Pope.
(5) SSPX adherents think that they must refuse submission to Benedict XVI "when it's necessary" in order to remain Catholic.
(6) SSPX adherents could be considered pertinacious in the sense that they have been warned and condemned by "the Pope."
(7) SSPX adherents could not really be considered pertinacious in the sense that their refusal of submission stems not from malice but from a love of the Catholic Church, the Pope, the papacy, Sacred Tradition, a hatred of heresy, and a correct understanding of (almost all) genuinely Catholic teachings.

(I think John Lane would agree with me on all of these points!)
With such a big mess, it's simply not right to just act as though SSPX adherents were "schismatics" and leave it at that. It just isn't fair to do that. It leaves out so many factors that change the picture. We do not have here a clear picture of genuine schism at all. It's a confused mess. That's why I don't try to fit it through the stencil of black-and-white schism, Clement. We don't have here a situation like in 1054 when real schismatics really broke away from the true Church. The situation with the SSPX simply isn't a clear-cut "either they're schismatics or they're not." I think most people would agree with me on that.

Quote:
1. My understanding is that schism is the separation from the true church and the setting up of a church in opposition. Has the SSPX separated from the true church and what new church have they formed?


If you're looking for a clear answer from me, I don't have one, and frankly, I don't think anyone else does either. You need not set up your own church in opposition to the true Church to be a schismatic, btw. It suffices if you refuse communion with members of the Church subject to the Pope, for example, or simply, out of malice, refuse submission to the Pope, as in grave disobedience (though this is not to say that all disobedience to the Pope is necessarily schismatic).

Quote:
2. Do you believe that it is schismatic to refuse submission to a false pope? If so, can you please give me an authority?


If he is believed to be the true one, of course. It would be the sin of schism on your conscience, though not the ecclesiastical crime of schism. My authority on that is Catholic moral theology. Take Fr. Dominic Prummer, OP: "Everyone is obliged to follow his conscience whether it commands or forbids some action, not only when it is true but also when it is in invincible error" (Handbook of Moral Theology, par. 139). Fr. Prummer gives an example: "Anyone who thinks that to-day is a fast-day, although as a matter of fact it is not, and in spite of his conviction does not observe the fast commits formal sin" (ibid.). So, to apply this to the matter at hand, anyone who believes X to be the Pope (in invincible ignorance) and consciously and maliciously refuses submission to him, commits the formal sin of schism.

In Christ,

Mario


Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:12 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Una Cum
marioderksen wrote:
So, to apply this to the matter at hand, anyone who believes X to be the Pope (in invincible ignorance) and consciously and maliciously refuses submission to him, commits the formal sin of schism.


Well said, Mario. And this is what I have believed for years, but have never explained so well.

Whether "X" is or is not the Pope is not the issue: the issue is the contradiction of the SSPX who believes (erroneously) "X" to be the true Pope, yet refuses complete submission to him.

Yet, they (and the SSPV) are, for the most part, our brothers in the Faith and should be treated as such. To do anything less is tantamount to formal schism on our part also.

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


Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:21 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Una Cum
AMWills wrote:
Catholicism is the "the hill to die for". You don't throw away the weapons and armour the Church provides in Her sacraments to fight the battle. Nor do you turn your guns on your fellow Catholics who are also ready to die for the Church because they don't run as fast as you or discern the enemy as quickly as you do. You help them.


Exactly.

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


Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:44 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Una Cum
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
to wit, Robert, as I've asked a number of times, where's the Church for the sede, in its visible, jurisdictional, hierarchical structure (?)


I believe we simply do not have enough information to answer this question directly.

However, I believe that that part of the Church which has been "...behind the iron curtain..." for many years might hold part of the answer. I also firmly believe that God has never left us "...orphans..." as Christ Himself assured us. Therefore, there must be a "visible" (in the sense of being able to be seen, not totally spiritual, physical), jurisdictional, hierarchical structure still in existence, and there must be until the end of time. We, in the West, simply do not know where, or who, it is...yet.

Quote:
Mario, may have jumped to "other issues" because his defense of "una-cum"/grave sin has been shown to be without merit.


Agreed.

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


Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:55 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  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.