Post by Didymus on Feb 6, 2024 13:41:34 GMT -5
I have asked Fr. Rioult what he thinks about the "Una Cum" masses and he has sent me in response a pdf that he made addressing general topics. Although I do not agree with several positions of Fr. Rioult, it seems to me that his intellectual honesty is recognize, since here he mentions and makes it clear that he does not have any power within the Church, nor can he bind anyone about where he has to attend and minimally recognizes his status in this crisis as a traditional priest.
QUOTE: Mise au point en.pdf (128.35 KB)
"Some time ago, a mother made a remark to me that could also be partly a justified reproach - because I don't think about everything and I don't know everything. The reproach was that I didn't announce the children's First Communions in this chapel. The mother told me that this was good for bonding the faithful, who were here as if in their own parish, and that there were indulgences reserved for these circumstances. In fact, the Church offers a plenary indulgence under the ordinary conditions (state of grace and exemption from all venial sins; intention to earn the indulgence; accomplishment of the prescribed work) for those who approach the holy table for the 1ère time and attend First Communion. So: I warn Philomène Barge and all you who attend the service that you can earn this indulgence today: the remission of all the penalty due to all your sins.
I said that the reproach was partly justified because of the 2e point. But I felt it was unjustified because of the 1er point. We're not a parish, or a quasi-parish, or anything like that. This point gives us the opportunity to make an important and delicate remark. We are not a parish, because I am not your parish priest. Church law, to fulfill the Sunday precept, obliges Christians to attend mass in their parish. According to canon law, I have no jurisdiction over you. And so you are under no obligation to attend Mass in this chapel, any more than in an SSPX or IMBC chapel.
To take a warlike image: I'm not a lost officer in a routed army. You are also lost soldiers in a routed army. And as often happens in such cases, some soldiers put under the government of an officer whom circumstances have put in their path. But you must understand that these circumstances are extraordinary. We are cut off from command. The HQ is inaccessible. One colonel is dead, another a prisoner. Worse still, a general has betrayed us, and the very government of our country is occupied by the enemy. In short, we are no longer an army, but a remnant of one. Together, we're trying to survive. That's all there is to it. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm just a hermit who doesn't mind doing a few favors.
So we're not a parish, and by law you should be sanctifying Sunday in your parish. You don't, because we're living in a religiously unheard-of situation. Rome is no longer Rome. The so-called Catholic authorities have made a pact with the heretical enemy. But what about the Pope? That's the big, troubling question. How can we explain theoretically what we are experiencing practically? I don't think we've got a perfect solution to this problem yet.
We're a bit like Christianity in the XVe century, when it was impossible to say with any certainty whether or not such and such a person was pope. In 1409, at the time of the Great Schism, some claimed that the true Pope was the Pope of Rome (Gregory XII); others, with other arguments, concluded in favor of the Pope of Avignon (Benedict XIII); and still others, with other arguments of their own, since they had cardinals from the other two camps, concluded in favor of the Pope of Pisa (Alexander V). To this day, we have no certainty. The only certainty is that, with Martin V (1417), the Church no longer has any doubts about its legitimate pontiff. The crisis of the Great Schism has passed.
Despite this, as in every age, there are Christians who reason as follows: according to my lights, the right answer is such and such, and since it's the right answer, everyone must subscribe to it. The fallacy is enormous, but it's a common one: I think the truth is this, so this is the truth. These Christians forget the passions, ignorance, prejudice and errors of reasoning. As an invitation to restraint, let's remember the great Saint Bernard, Doctor of the Church and a great devotee of the Church.
N.D. who wrote a letter of reproach to the canons of Lyon because they had supported the thesis of Mary's immaculate conception. The great Saint Bernard was wrong; only the judgment of the Church is infallible. Let's not forget the great martyr St. Cyprian, who, as bishop of Carthage, wrote to his clergy with a number of very convincing Scriptural arguments to the effect that baptism conferred by a heretic should be renewed. The great Saint Cyprian was wrong; only the judgment of the Church is infallible. And the Church proved both St. Bernard and St. Cyprian wrong. This difficulty does not prevent us from having our own opinion and defending it, but not to the extent of making it a sign of Catholicity. Saint Pierre Ferrier was for Avignon; Saint Catherine of Siena was for Rome!
My personal opinion is that Francis cannot be Pope in the full sense of the word. Francis is a monster, a traitor who conspires with the enemies of the faith and destroys the unity of the Church Catholic. The best image, in my opinion, is that of the apocalypse: the false prophet has the horns of the lamb but the language of the devil. He has appearance, not reality. As his actions are contrary to the Catholic faith taught by his predecessors, I refuse to quote him in the canon of the Mass with "all those who worship the orthodox Catholic and apostolic faith". (Cf. The Church and apostasy)
But on this question of the heretical pope, there are various contradictory and irreconcilable opinions held by worthy Catholic theologians. None has been condemned or taught with authority: so all are free. Even the one I don't personally agree with. Some of you were disturbed when I invited a priest who, like some older theologians, Cardinal Cajetan in particular, believes that the Pope is a heretic "deponendum sed non depositum". For them, this was unacceptable, because they themselves followed the contrary opinion of Saint Robert Bellarmine: pope heriticus depositus de facto. If I myself follow the opinion of Saint Robert Bellarmin, I refuse to no longer consider as Catholic anyone who follows the opinion, perhaps even erroneous, of Cajetan. Others among you, on the other hand, have been troubled because I invited a sedevacantist priest or bishop from the IMBC. For them, these opinions are false.
Even if I'm leaning more towards the sedevacantist solution and the thesis of Mgr Guérard des Lauriers, which has been adopted by the IMBC, I feel that our situation has theoretically reached an impasse. This is because none of the solutions proposed today are completely and properly satisfactory. I believe I have chosen the least bad in theory and in practice. But it's quite possible that we, like St. Bernard and St. Cyprian, will make a mistake.
There are three possible positions:
1. apparent legality: parish; Paul VI Mass, and you cooperate with all the modernist drifts. Unacceptable!
2. Resistance to legality: I recognize the Pope, but I resist him. JP II is pope but antichrist (Mgr Lefebvre). This SSPX/Mgr Lefebvre position is untenable. According to this opinion, a true pope of the Roman Church could, in the universal Church, promulgate bad laws, canonize scandalous saints, teach a defective magisterium, promote a cult that favors heresy, validate dubious sacraments, and practice a mode of government that drives Catholics to apostasy. No document of the Magisterium can corroborate this thesis.
3. Catholicity outside this false legality: this is the sedevacantist thesis. Such a pontiff is heretical and outside the Church. He is not to be obeyed. He is shunned like the plague. But the difficulty lies not in asserting this, which seems to correspond to reality. But in the insoluble consequences it engenders. Since Paul VI, there has been no jurisdiction. This poses certain problems of permanence and visibility of the Church (de jure, not de facto). Another problem: "Who is a true Christian? A true Christian is one who has been baptized, believes and professes Christian doctrine, and obeys the legitimate pastors of the Church". (Saint Pius X Catechism) Admittedly, some priests have set out theological explanations. But none of them has sufficient authority to bind our consciences. What's more, to say that Rome will lose its faith, the seat of the antichrist (Message la Salette), is to use the rhetoric of 16th-century Protestants...
So we're in an apparent vicious circle, where whatever choice we make to defend one dogma of faith, we seem to contradict another dogma of faith. To illustrate this vicious circle, I'll use the very words used by Saint Louis-Marie Grignon de Montfort to refute the heretics of his day: "The Roman Church, or that which recognizes the pope as the successor of Saint Peter, is the true Church because it has its true mark, which is perpetuity without interruption from Christ to the present day". (FSSPX/Sedevacantist): "The Catholic Church is the true Church because if it had fallen into error as they claim, the gates of hell would have prevailed against it, which is directly opposed to JC's promise."
To overcome this apparent contradiction, distinctions and reasoning are necessary. But only the supreme authority of the Church can validate such reasoning with infallibility. That's why we're in a momentary impasse, just as Christianity was in the XVe century during the Great Schism. I believe that our situation can only be explained by the end of time, which I hope is near. But I can neither affirm this with certainty nor with authority. We have to learn to live without having all the answers to our questions (humility/patience). Do the best we can. Wait for Christ to return to this apostate world, buried in the darkness of lies. And never stop crying out: "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!"
QUOTE: Mise au point en.pdf (128.35 KB)
"Some time ago, a mother made a remark to me that could also be partly a justified reproach - because I don't think about everything and I don't know everything. The reproach was that I didn't announce the children's First Communions in this chapel. The mother told me that this was good for bonding the faithful, who were here as if in their own parish, and that there were indulgences reserved for these circumstances. In fact, the Church offers a plenary indulgence under the ordinary conditions (state of grace and exemption from all venial sins; intention to earn the indulgence; accomplishment of the prescribed work) for those who approach the holy table for the 1ère time and attend First Communion. So: I warn Philomène Barge and all you who attend the service that you can earn this indulgence today: the remission of all the penalty due to all your sins.
I said that the reproach was partly justified because of the 2e point. But I felt it was unjustified because of the 1er point. We're not a parish, or a quasi-parish, or anything like that. This point gives us the opportunity to make an important and delicate remark. We are not a parish, because I am not your parish priest. Church law, to fulfill the Sunday precept, obliges Christians to attend mass in their parish. According to canon law, I have no jurisdiction over you. And so you are under no obligation to attend Mass in this chapel, any more than in an SSPX or IMBC chapel.
To take a warlike image: I'm not a lost officer in a routed army. You are also lost soldiers in a routed army. And as often happens in such cases, some soldiers put under the government of an officer whom circumstances have put in their path. But you must understand that these circumstances are extraordinary. We are cut off from command. The HQ is inaccessible. One colonel is dead, another a prisoner. Worse still, a general has betrayed us, and the very government of our country is occupied by the enemy. In short, we are no longer an army, but a remnant of one. Together, we're trying to survive. That's all there is to it. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm just a hermit who doesn't mind doing a few favors.
So we're not a parish, and by law you should be sanctifying Sunday in your parish. You don't, because we're living in a religiously unheard-of situation. Rome is no longer Rome. The so-called Catholic authorities have made a pact with the heretical enemy. But what about the Pope? That's the big, troubling question. How can we explain theoretically what we are experiencing practically? I don't think we've got a perfect solution to this problem yet.
We're a bit like Christianity in the XVe century, when it was impossible to say with any certainty whether or not such and such a person was pope. In 1409, at the time of the Great Schism, some claimed that the true Pope was the Pope of Rome (Gregory XII); others, with other arguments, concluded in favor of the Pope of Avignon (Benedict XIII); and still others, with other arguments of their own, since they had cardinals from the other two camps, concluded in favor of the Pope of Pisa (Alexander V). To this day, we have no certainty. The only certainty is that, with Martin V (1417), the Church no longer has any doubts about its legitimate pontiff. The crisis of the Great Schism has passed.
Despite this, as in every age, there are Christians who reason as follows: according to my lights, the right answer is such and such, and since it's the right answer, everyone must subscribe to it. The fallacy is enormous, but it's a common one: I think the truth is this, so this is the truth. These Christians forget the passions, ignorance, prejudice and errors of reasoning. As an invitation to restraint, let's remember the great Saint Bernard, Doctor of the Church and a great devotee of the Church.
N.D. who wrote a letter of reproach to the canons of Lyon because they had supported the thesis of Mary's immaculate conception. The great Saint Bernard was wrong; only the judgment of the Church is infallible. Let's not forget the great martyr St. Cyprian, who, as bishop of Carthage, wrote to his clergy with a number of very convincing Scriptural arguments to the effect that baptism conferred by a heretic should be renewed. The great Saint Cyprian was wrong; only the judgment of the Church is infallible. And the Church proved both St. Bernard and St. Cyprian wrong. This difficulty does not prevent us from having our own opinion and defending it, but not to the extent of making it a sign of Catholicity. Saint Pierre Ferrier was for Avignon; Saint Catherine of Siena was for Rome!
My personal opinion is that Francis cannot be Pope in the full sense of the word. Francis is a monster, a traitor who conspires with the enemies of the faith and destroys the unity of the Church Catholic. The best image, in my opinion, is that of the apocalypse: the false prophet has the horns of the lamb but the language of the devil. He has appearance, not reality. As his actions are contrary to the Catholic faith taught by his predecessors, I refuse to quote him in the canon of the Mass with "all those who worship the orthodox Catholic and apostolic faith". (Cf. The Church and apostasy)
But on this question of the heretical pope, there are various contradictory and irreconcilable opinions held by worthy Catholic theologians. None has been condemned or taught with authority: so all are free. Even the one I don't personally agree with. Some of you were disturbed when I invited a priest who, like some older theologians, Cardinal Cajetan in particular, believes that the Pope is a heretic "deponendum sed non depositum". For them, this was unacceptable, because they themselves followed the contrary opinion of Saint Robert Bellarmine: pope heriticus depositus de facto. If I myself follow the opinion of Saint Robert Bellarmin, I refuse to no longer consider as Catholic anyone who follows the opinion, perhaps even erroneous, of Cajetan. Others among you, on the other hand, have been troubled because I invited a sedevacantist priest or bishop from the IMBC. For them, these opinions are false.
Even if I'm leaning more towards the sedevacantist solution and the thesis of Mgr Guérard des Lauriers, which has been adopted by the IMBC, I feel that our situation has theoretically reached an impasse. This is because none of the solutions proposed today are completely and properly satisfactory. I believe I have chosen the least bad in theory and in practice. But it's quite possible that we, like St. Bernard and St. Cyprian, will make a mistake.
There are three possible positions:
1. apparent legality: parish; Paul VI Mass, and you cooperate with all the modernist drifts. Unacceptable!
2. Resistance to legality: I recognize the Pope, but I resist him. JP II is pope but antichrist (Mgr Lefebvre). This SSPX/Mgr Lefebvre position is untenable. According to this opinion, a true pope of the Roman Church could, in the universal Church, promulgate bad laws, canonize scandalous saints, teach a defective magisterium, promote a cult that favors heresy, validate dubious sacraments, and practice a mode of government that drives Catholics to apostasy. No document of the Magisterium can corroborate this thesis.
3. Catholicity outside this false legality: this is the sedevacantist thesis. Such a pontiff is heretical and outside the Church. He is not to be obeyed. He is shunned like the plague. But the difficulty lies not in asserting this, which seems to correspond to reality. But in the insoluble consequences it engenders. Since Paul VI, there has been no jurisdiction. This poses certain problems of permanence and visibility of the Church (de jure, not de facto). Another problem: "Who is a true Christian? A true Christian is one who has been baptized, believes and professes Christian doctrine, and obeys the legitimate pastors of the Church". (Saint Pius X Catechism) Admittedly, some priests have set out theological explanations. But none of them has sufficient authority to bind our consciences. What's more, to say that Rome will lose its faith, the seat of the antichrist (Message la Salette), is to use the rhetoric of 16th-century Protestants...
So we're in an apparent vicious circle, where whatever choice we make to defend one dogma of faith, we seem to contradict another dogma of faith. To illustrate this vicious circle, I'll use the very words used by Saint Louis-Marie Grignon de Montfort to refute the heretics of his day: "The Roman Church, or that which recognizes the pope as the successor of Saint Peter, is the true Church because it has its true mark, which is perpetuity without interruption from Christ to the present day". (FSSPX/Sedevacantist): "The Catholic Church is the true Church because if it had fallen into error as they claim, the gates of hell would have prevailed against it, which is directly opposed to JC's promise."
To overcome this apparent contradiction, distinctions and reasoning are necessary. But only the supreme authority of the Church can validate such reasoning with infallibility. That's why we're in a momentary impasse, just as Christianity was in the XVe century during the Great Schism. I believe that our situation can only be explained by the end of time, which I hope is near. But I can neither affirm this with certainty nor with authority. We have to learn to live without having all the answers to our questions (humility/patience). Do the best we can. Wait for Christ to return to this apostate world, buried in the darkness of lies. And never stop crying out: "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!"