It is currently Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:27 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
 Bishop Sanborn on the SSPX 
Author Message

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Bishop Sanborn on the SSPX
Quote:
Can We Go The Una Cum Mass In A Pinch?
"... Therefore a false pope is the principle of being cut off from the Roman Catholic Church and from Christ as Head of the Church. To adhere to a false pope, therefore, is to be cut off from Christ. A priest's Mass, consequently, which is in union with a false pope is a Mass which is cut off from the unity of the Roman Catholic Church and from Christ the Head of the Church and Supreme High Priest, and the Principle Offerer of every Mass."


This constant argument of a mass which names a false pope unintentionally resulting in the priest and all those who attend committing an act of schism from the Catholic Church is one of the reasons people assume the sedevacantist thesis is nuts and results in the una cum issue being a large distraction from the main issue of sedevacantism. It is unfortunate some very public sedevacantists focus on the Una cum issue, which is Irrelavent to the sedevacantist thesis, instead of focusing on the theogical principles which lead to the sedevacantist conclusion. To be fair I wanted to post this to illustrate the anti-dogmatic sedevacantism position which some in the SSPX assume is partly because there are bad arguments which are viewed as linked intrinsically with the sedevacantist position. The problem with the Una Cum issue is St. Vincent Ferrer to my knowledge never had to make an abjuration of error or confess the sin of saying a mass in union with an antipope so the argument in a simple historical context fails.

At the same time there are those in the SSPX who grasps at these arguments and purposely use them to try and discredit the sedevacantist thesis. This is intellectually dishonest as well and simple results in a lot of spilled ink on non sequiturs. It is very sad situation all the way around :(


Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:35 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Bishop Sanborn on the SSPX
James, it's a complete reversal of the traditional Catholic reaction. How this is done without it being obvious is really quite amazing, but so successful has it been amongst sedevacantists that people like us who don't fall for it are regarded as somewhat odd by those who have.

The traditional Catholic reaction to the heresies of the New Church is to hold fast to tradition. The sedevacantist position is an opinion that follows upon, and is logically dependent upon, that reaction. It cannot exist, and could not have arison, without that context.

The Sanborn-Cekada-Dolan "sedevacantist" theory upends this reality and makes the vacancy of the Holy See the primary fact, and then seeks to make everything depend logically upon that. Hence the notion that one cannot reject heresy until and unless one rejects the papal claim of the heretic - on pain of being accused of "sifting the magisterium". This is logically impossible and self-defeating. Anything posing as a traditional Catholic stance, but which vitiates the propriety of the traditional Catholic reaction to error, undermines its own foundations. I am amazed that they don't see this, but animosity to the SSPX appears to be their main driver, so logic is forced to take a back seat.

Likewise the notion that "una cum" masses are objectively offensive to God. Unless one postulates, without the slightest evidence, that there were priests who were sedevacantists immediately that Paul VI (or John XXIII, or whoever) was recognised falsely as pope by everybody else, then this position is the implicit assertion that ALL of the masses in the entire world were objectively offensive to God for some unstated period. This is not merely untenable, it is blasphemous. I've pointed this out for nearly fifteen years and they won't response with any answer except more "proofs" of their absurdity, so again, logic takes a back seat. They are men of slogans, not substantial argument, who as you highlight have immeasurably damaged the sedevacantist position in the eyes of sedeplenists.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:10 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 8:46 pm
Posts: 16
New post Re: Bishop Sanborn on the SSPX
John, would a mass such as this become offensive to God if the pope in question was first officially declared anti-pope by the Church? Are you saying that this is where our private judgment crosses a line? I guess I don't understand how, as sedevacantists, we believe a heretic pope automatically ceases to be pope by divine law, but at the same time we can say that a mass that names same anti-pope XYZ does not also contradict divine law. These two beliefs seem to contradict one another.

Then again, I'm relatively new to all of this, so.....


Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:57 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: Bishop Sanborn on the SSPX
2Vermont wrote:
John, would a mass such as this become offensive to God if the pope in question was first officially declared anti-pope by the Church? Are you saying that this is where our private judgment crosses a line? I guess I don't understand how, as sedevacantists, we believe a heretic pope automatically ceases to be pope by divine law, but at the same time we can say that a mass that names same anti-pope XYZ does not also contradict divine law. These two beliefs seem to contradict one another.

Then again, I'm relatively new to all of this, so.....


I think there needs to be distinguished here knowledge derived from the magisterium of the Church and private opinion. If the magisterium of the Church declare the imposter to be an antipope, it is no longer a matter open to private judgment as the laity and the priests must submit their private judgment to the more competent judgment of the Church. The problem is today there is confusion of facts and there is not an authority to make clear what the relevant facts are.

As sedevacantists, in our private judgment, we have reached moral certitude that this man is an imposter based on facts. One, a sedeplenist, could hold a contrary opinion not knowing, being confused, or being misinformed of the facts pertaining to the case without incurring any guilt what so ever in the case (naming a pope in the mass under these circumstances would not result in any sin and certainly does not automatically result in the priest becoming a schismatic). However, if one has reached moral certitude of this man being an imposter and against his own intellect acknowledges the imposter as his pope, there would be guilt incurred (naming a pope in the mass under these circumstances would result in sin).

Objectively either way it is wrong to name an imposter in the mass. But the point is it is an error of fact not an error of dogma, so it does not result in the priest or the laity who make this mistake separating themselves from the Church.

Take for example a person on a deserted island who losing track of the days mistakenly observes Monday as the Lord's day and does servile work on Sunday. Objectively he is in error but in such a case one could not accuse him of sin.


Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:13 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 8:46 pm
Posts: 16
New post Re: Bishop Sanborn on the SSPX
James Schroepfer wrote:
2Vermont wrote:
John, would a mass such as this become offensive to God if the pope in question was first officially declared anti-pope by the Church? Are you saying that this is where our private judgment crosses a line? I guess I don't understand how, as sedevacantists, we believe a heretic pope automatically ceases to be pope by divine law, but at the same time we can say that a mass that names same anti-pope XYZ does not also contradict divine law. These two beliefs seem to contradict one another.

Then again, I'm relatively new to all of this, so.....


I think there needs to be distinguished here knowledge derived from the magisterium of the Church and private opinion. If the magisterium of the Church declare the imposter to be an antipope, it is no longer a matter open to private judgment as the laity and the priests must submit their private judgment to the more competent judgment of the Church. The problem is today there is confusion of facts and there is not an authority to make clear what the relevant facts are.

As sedevacantists, in our private judgment, we have reached moral certitude that this man is an imposter based on facts. One, a sedeplenist, could hold a contrary opinion not knowing, being confused, or being misinformed of the facts pertaining to the case without incurring any guilt what so ever in the case (naming a pope in the mass under these circumstances would not result in any sin and certainly does not automatically result in the priest becoming a schismatic). However, if one has reached moral certitude of this man being an imposter and against his own intellect acknowledges the imposter as his pope, there would be guilt incurred (naming a pope in the mass under these circumstances would result in sin).

Objectively either way it is wrong to name an imposter in the mass. But the point is it is an error of fact not an error of dogma, so it does not result in the priest or the laity who make this mistake separating themselves from the Church.

Take for example a person on a deserted island who losing track of the days mistakenly observes Monday as the Lord's day and does servile work on Sunday. Objectively he is in error but in such a case one could not accuse him of sin.


I guess it was my understanding that Fr Cekada etal is speaking to those who do believe the pope to be an imposter. They should not attend an una cum mass.


Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:46 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Bishop Sanborn on the SSPX
2Vermont wrote:
I guess it was my understanding that Fr Cekada etal is speaking to those who do believe the pope to be an imposter. They should not attend an una cum mass.


I'm honestly not sure what Fr. Cekada, Bishop Sanborn, and others are saying. It seems to me that they are saying that it is objectively sinful to assist at an "una cum Mass", which would mean, of course, that their own Masses before they arrived to the sedevacantist thesis were objectively sinful.

It certainly does not seem that anyone who frequently condemns "una cum Masses" are saying "should not" at all and that these men seem to be obsessed with the matter as being more important than ensuring that the sacraments are available to people.


Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:56 am
Profile

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: Bishop Sanborn on the SSPX
Consider this: "the fact that my assistance at an una cum Mass yesterday was not sinful does not mean that it isn't today"


Wed Jul 02, 2014 9:38 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 am
Posts: 138
New post Re: Bishop Sanborn on the SSPX
Cam wrote:
Consider this: "the fact that my assistance at an una cum Mass yesterday was not sinful does not mean that it isn't today"


Exactly what sin, I wonder?

Secondly, how could there possibly be a true and valid Mass that is acceptable and grace-filled for some Catholics (sedeplenists), yet sinful and soul-destroying for others (sedevacantists)? That has got to be the craziest, un-Catholic, bordering on blasphemous notion I have ever had the misfortune to come across.


Wed Jul 02, 2014 11:41 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Bishop Sanborn on the SSPX
AMWills wrote:
Cam wrote:
Consider this: "the fact that my assistance at an una cum Mass yesterday was not sinful does not mean that it isn't today"


Exactly what sin, I wonder?


Yes, and if something's a sin now that wasn't before, then something has changed. What is it?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:19 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: Bishop Sanborn on the SSPX
John Lane wrote:
AMWills wrote:
Cam wrote:
Consider this: "the fact that my assistance at an una cum Mass yesterday was not sinful does not mean that it isn't today"


Exactly what sin, I wonder?


Yes, and if something's a sin now that wasn't before, then something has changed. What is it?


One concludes that these popes were/are not popes - sedevacantism is true.


Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:27 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Bishop Sanborn on the SSPX
Cam wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Yes, and if something's a sin now that wasn't before, then something has changed. What is it?


One concludes that these popes were/are not popes - sedevacantism is true.


Right, so you're saying that whatever one does, keep away from that notion or you might have to stay away from Holy Mass...

What a winner of an advertisement for sedevacantism!

Objectively, the masses of schismatics are not available to Catholics. If one didn't realise that the mass one was attending was being offered by a schismatic, then one would not sin, despite the fact that objectively the act is sinful. Why is it "objectively sinful"? Because the object is unlawful. What is the "object"? The schismatic status of the priest.

In the present case nobody can say what the evil object is, so that when they use the complementary term "objective" it is vacant of meaning. It signifies nothing. It's smoke and mirrors; just clever rhetoric which pretends to convey a meaning which is not actually there. The "object" in this case is the offering of Holy Mass by a Catholic priest who holds an opinion different from yours. He isn't sinning, and you're not sinning by being present. There's no objective sinfulness.

Why is he not a schismatic? Because the manifest intent he has in recognising, provisonally, Francis as pope is to avoid schism. As I've said many times, he's the opposite of a schismatic.

On Bishop Sanborn's approach, a man who falls off a cliff is an "objective suicide." Yes, that's nonsense, and no, I'm not twisting his principles. The analogy is exact and unanswerable, which is one reason he has never deigned to reply to it. It's been on record for over a decade, after all.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:31 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: Bishop Sanborn on the SSPX
The only object here which results in sin would be the recognition of an anti-pope as pope, knowing he is an anti-pope i.e. becoming a schismatic. The naming of the anti-pope in the canon of the mass may be a means in which this is manifest in the external forum. (Not really, for other than the server one cannot know his priest is naming the anti-pope in the mass without asking him outside of mass; unless the person has super hearing)

But the question remains is this a conclusive means to know the priest is a schismatic i.e. knows he is recognizing an anti-pope as his pope? I don't think one can make such an argument when the priest is explaining at the same time in the external forum he must name the "pope" in the canon of the mass, even though he may not like anything he says or does, because the man is still the "pope". Nor do I think with all the confusion of today one could argue this is the only stipulation to label a fellow Catholic as a schismatic. One may be able to say the conclusion is erroneous, but he cannot claim the conclusion is sinful unless the priest is denying some other doctrine to maintain such a conclusion.

Would it be fair to say it is like having a knife submitted in evidence at a murder trial? Without fingerprints is it conclusive evidence to the crime? And what court would not be prudent enough to check for fingerprints before condemning the defendant?


Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:47 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 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.