|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Apr 9, 2022 10:27:59 GMT -5
However, I would ask this, of anyone adopting the NUC position: Are you willing to be the cause of someone missing out on the sacraments? And how will you answer for this at your judgement? This is my ENTIRE beef with the NUCleheads.....they dont consider the ramifications of being wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Apr 9, 2022 19:37:21 GMT -5
However, I would ask this, of anyone adopting the NUC position: Are you willing to be the cause of someone missing out on the sacraments? And how will you answer for this at your judgement? This is my ENTIRE beef with the NUCleheads.....they dont consider the ramifications of being wrong. Even if they were right, and they are NOT, there is still the fallout of delayed baptisms, marriages, confirmations that could give people the graces they need. As for confession and extreme unction, people could die in their sins! So this is not even merely about the mass! Ironically, the ones pushing the NUC position are the least likely to make sick calls and go the extra mile without comfort so that a poor, isolated family can have the sacraments.
|
|
|
Post by samuelsede on Apr 11, 2022 5:03:45 GMT -5
Pacelli, I look forward to your treatment of that section from A Grain of Incense.
Samuel
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 12, 2022 8:16:37 GMT -5
Pacelli, I look forward to your treatment of that section from A Grain of Incense. Samuel Hello Samuel, Things have gotten busier for me at present with work, but it will be posted here soon.
|
|
|
Post by carloscamejo on Apr 12, 2022 17:40:56 GMT -5
However, I would ask this, of anyone adopting the NUC position: Are you willing to be the cause of someone missing out on the sacraments? And how will you answer for this at your judgement? This is my ENTIRE beef with the NUCleheads.....they dont consider the ramifications of being wrong. They don't consider being wrong because the faith is to them, like Protestantism. They can just adopt unfounded theological ideas like flavors of soda without implications to the Faithful. It's really awful theology. It would be as if a Michelin-trained chef were constantly advocating for eating raw chicken. Both are people with extensive training not to harm, in one case, the body (food-borne illnesses that can be fatal to some groups) and in another case, the soul (spiritual illnesses that deprive the faithful of the sacraments for no reason), but they are doing the complete inverse of what they know to do.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Apr 13, 2022 8:20:53 GMT -5
Remember Fr. Desposito's public comment that even one single "una cum" mass is worse than all the abortions in the world? How does one even begin to correct such a public sin of that magnitude and the ensuing scandal that comes from it? Or, does Bp. Sanborn disagree with his own priest who works under him and is a teacher in his seminary on the supposed gravity of this "sin?" Has he ever even acknowledged his belief that he was the cause of public scandal? I haven't seen it. The reason I suspect is deep down in his soul he knows his holy masses said by him from his younger years as a priest were not scandalous at all. That would better explain his actions, not his rhetoric. If you were complicit in even one abortion that was publicly known about how much work would have to be done, perhaps for the rest of your life to try to repair the scandal, but what of a supposed sin that is worse than all abortions (baby murder) ever committed? Could you just shift gears and say, "I no longer believe in baby murder, I now maintain that it's wrong?," and that somehow resolves the problem, all scandal is now dealt with? Bishop Sanborn says that the SSPX and the recognize-and-resist position are schismatic in principle. I assume he admits that his own involvement in an objectively schismatic ministry was gravely wrong and was a public scandal. I think his main sticking point is not the "una cum" phrase, but rather the schismatic R&R position of insisting that the V2 popes are legitimate and then operating your own independent decades-long worldwide ministry. Bp. Sanborn would say that one can't attend an SSPX Mass even if the priest tells you that he's a secret sedevacantist and he's not going to mention Francis in the Te Igitur prayer. What matters more is the public status of the priest and his organization. The attendees of the Mass make an implicit public profession that their attendance is licit, which it wouldn't be if the priest and the organization are objectively schismatic. The usual objection is that canon 2261 allows people to attend the Mass of undeclared heretics and schismatics. I think it's a gross error to interpret this canon to mean that laymen have no obligation to avoid clergy who are objectively heretical or schismatic, but as yet uncondemned by ecclesiastical authority. If it's truly a question of needing a sacrament, one could approach the priest privately. Attending his public Mass every week is a whole different thing. I think Bp. Sanborn would agree that to name the wrong pope in the Canon by an innocent mistake is not a sin, nor does it ruin the Mass. I've never heard anyone argue the contrary. Seems to me that "people made a mistake in 1968, therefore we have a right to keep making the same mistake nowadays" (when the situation is much clearer now) is a weak argument. The same goes for saying someone is implying that the Church defected. Everyone is scrambling to make sense of our situation because it's very difficult to find an explanation that doesn't mean the Church defected. The Church must have authority and sacraments, and be spotless in her law and liturgy.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 13, 2022 13:01:51 GMT -5
Samuel wrote quoting Fr. Cekada:
Hello Samuel,
No one doubts that in ordinary times, that the above quotes would be accurate in regards to the prayer in the mass for the Pope being a sign of one's unity with him, but clearly we are not in an ordinary time.
What happens in a time when a man prayed for as Pope is an undeclared antipope? Does it mean that the priest then must then accept him as Pope even though he knows he can't be Pope? Well, interestingly enough, the Church dealt with such as issue. The Fourth Council of Constantinople legislated that the name of the Patriarch could not be removed from the mass and the office, even when his crimes were known prior to the judgment of the Church:
We know that this law is no longer in force, but the principle taught by the canon shows the thinking of the Church on such a matter. Catholics adhere to authority, we do not make ourselves the authority,
What of a priest living in the time of the Fourth Council of Constantinople knew that his Patriarch was a heretic, even though many others weren't sure if his words and actions were strong enough to make such a determination? According to this, his name must still be used in the canon until the Church settles the matter. But, it's clear that the priest must not believe the Patriarch in his teaching, so it clearly leaves the priest in a tough situation, as we are in a tough situation today.
The fact is that Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have not been judged by the Church. Therefore, a priest could in good conscience apply the principle from the Fourth Council of Constantinople and simply say I will not believe their heresies, I will keep the Faith, while at the same time, I refuse to make any determination of these men prior to the judgment of the Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre clearly tried to balance this highly complex matter through the 1970's and 80's. It's not easy to do, but that's where we are at.
Fr. Cekada seems to pretend that the naming of the undeclared antipopes, men who have not yet been judged by the Church, ipso facto forces a Catholic who attends such masses to believe in their claim to the papal office, as though there are not other possibilities for naming such men.
When the above quotes were stated, the matter was as clear of a principle as could be, the man named as Pope and prayed for in the Mass showed one's unity with him. This is clearly an extraordinary time, not envisioned by anyone prior to our times.
Is there a law which states, "Catholics are forbidden from attending masses said by validly ordained priests who use the Catholic rites and believe the Catholic Faith, who in their masses are naming the undeclared antipope as pope?"
Are you aware that the mind of the Church has always been to give the greatest latitude to Catholics in the reception of the sacraments, not unnecessarily restrict them? The Church allows a Catholic in danger of death to confess to an orthodox schismatic priest. The Church allows Catholics to attend mass of undeclared heretics under certain conditions. Now, Fr. Cekada wants us to believe that the Church somehow forbids (even though the Church didn't bind us on this) attendance at masses said by priests who profess the Catholic Faith, are validly ordained, and use the Catholic rite merely because he thinks that attendance at such masses forces a Catholic to either adhere to the papal claims of these men, or to believe a lie, thereby pretending that there is no other possibility to explain such attendance.
I have said this many times, and publicly have said it, and many others have said this publicly as well, so I am reasonably certain that Fr. Cekada was fully aware of a very real problem with his idea, yet just ignored it. In the 1960's and at least a good amount of the 1970's there were no sedevacantists. All priests of the entire Catholic world prayed for Paul VI in their masses and offices. Yet, many priests of the world continued to believe the Faith despite praying for him in the mass. How can this be? Did the Church defect? Can the entire Catholic world adhere to a false antipope thereby showing a defection at the same time, or is there an alternative explanation of what happened? There is, and I will give you a snapshot, that the saying of the mass naming a man who is commonly believed to be Pope is not a sinful act, it is not a schismatic act, and it can even be justified from the law of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, even by a priest who privately believes (as we all who hold the sedevacantist position do) that he is not a true Pope, but is waiting for the matter to be settled by authority prior to acting on his own and removing the name from the mass and office.
Bishop Sanborn, has publicly stated that masses "una cum" the undeclared antipope are objectively schismatic. Was the entire Catholic world in schism? Did Bp. Sanborn think through where his logic leads him?
Let me sum up to make this easier: Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn have built a mental construct of what they are saying Catholics must do in this given situation. They have no authority, yet pretend that they can definitively interpret authorities, applying their teaching to this present situation, by telling Catholics that they sin against the First Commandment by attending the masses in question. Neither can cite any law to support their view, only their interpretation of Church teaching and theologians that does not specifically state what they are saying. Lastly, the relevant Church law on the worship of and partaking at sacraments always favors liberty as far as is reasonably possible as the Church wants you to save your soul, and the sacraments, most particularly the reception of Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation.
The proponents of this hardline narrative are answerable to God for their actions of leading Catholics away from the sacraments based solely on their interpretation of documents alone, while remaining completely unsupported by any law of the Church that they can show us. How many souls have been spiritually malnourished by these men? How many souls due to this malnourished have fallen away or have been damned? God only knows.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 13, 2022 19:30:27 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
Hello Eric,
I don’t concede any ministry that isn’t from the Church. His functioning as a priest by answering requests for the sacraments and conducting a ministry are not synonymous.
I do not share your assumption. His actions do not show what you are assuming. You may be right, it’s certainly a debatable point, but I don’t see any support for making such as assumption.
As I told Samuel above, Fr. Desposito who was trained by Bishop Sanborn, works under him and even teaches at his seminary publicly on Twittter stated that even a single “una cum” mass is greater than all abortions ever.
Aside from the absurdity of this statement, let’s examine it a bit:
1. Where did Fr. Desposito get this idea? Was it from his teacher and mentor, Bp. Sanborn? 2. Since this statement was public and well known about, did Bp. Sanborn disavow it? 3. Does Bp. Sanborn’s silence on it imply consent? 4. Does Bp. Sanborn agrees that this supposed sin, even when committed a single time, never mind habitually for years, even if done in ignorance, would require massive public reparation? Even a single abortion cries to Heaven for vengeance and the scandal of it is beyond measure. 5. What has Bishop Sanborn ever done to repair such scandal that he believes exists? Has he ever made a public statement condemning his own actions, not just in principle, but for what he apparently believes is a greater sin, and public, than all abortions in the world? 6. Has he put out statements to trying to get names of people who paid him stipends in order to repay the years worth of stipends collected for those “schismatic” masses? 7. The only thing I have seen is he switching gears and condemning Catholics for what he once did day after day, year after year, based on his newfound “truth!”
If he is repenting for this public crime graver than abortion, he’s been good at hiding his sorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 13, 2022 19:54:09 GMT -5
I am posting Fr. Desposito’s own words so all may see for themselves exactly what he said in his public statements. To this day I am aware of no retraction from him or any disavowal of this statement from Bp. Sanborn or any priest that works with him. This is the extent of how far error leads people, once the first principles are incorrect.: Fr. Desposito wrote: And For those not aware, Desposito is a "professor" in Sanborn's "seminary."
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Apr 14, 2022 6:52:48 GMT -5
Clearly Fr. Despósito is going for shock value with that comparison between una cum Masses and abortions. As the second tweet shows, his reasoning is that they fall into different categories. By the same reasoning he could say that one Russian Orthodox Mass, or one desecration of the Holy Eucharist, is more offensive to God than all the child abuse that ever happened in history.
I agree with you that such comparisons are ridiculous. I am not a scholar but I doubt there's such an absolute rule that any sin directly against God is infinitely worse than any sin directly against man. All sins are indirectly against God. If some sin against man is ruinous to society and is committed with great malice, I think it could be worse than many sins that are directly against God (e.g. laboring on Sunday for no good reason).
I wonder if Fr. Despósito thinks that starving 5 million people to death is less bad than one act of lying under oath?
There is also the issue of moral culpability. Bp. Sanborn wrote this:
As you point out, Pacelli, to say the same kind of thing about abortion would be absurd.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 14, 2022 9:06:08 GMT -5
Clearly Fr. Despósito is going for shock value with that comparison between una cum Masses and abortions. As the second tweet shows, his reasoning is that they fall into different categories. By the same reasoning he could say that one Russian Orthodox Mass, or one desecration of the Holy Eucharist, is more offensive to God than all the child abuse that ever happened in history. I agree with you that such comparisons are ridiculous. I am not a scholar but I doubt there's such an absolute rule that any sin directly against God is infinitely worse than any sin directly against man. All sins are indirectly against God. If some sin against man is ruinous to society and is committed with great malice, I think it could be worse than many sins that are directly against God (e.g. laboring on Sunday for no good reason). I wonder if Fr. Despósito thinks that starving 5 million people to death is less bad than one act of lying under oath? There is also the issue of moral culpability. Bp. Sanborn wrote this: As you point out, Pacelli, to say the same kind of thing about abortion would be absurd. Likewise, it appears that Fr. Cekada was going for shock value by giving the title to "The Grain of Incense." To act in such a way is to play with Sacred Theology, which is supposed to be about truth, not exaggeration. Fr. Cekada once did treat these matters as they deserve, when he was younger. It's what earned him tremendous credibility among Catholics, who took him seriously, not just because of his scholarship, but because of his reputation. I am not sure what happened to him, but he did change. His article that we are discussing is an agenda driven article, and it is full of gaping holes, but cleverly disguised to deceive the reader who will not notice them, and will rely on Fr. Cekada's reputation as one who does the theological heavy lifting for people on such a complex matter. These deficiencies and problems with the article were publicly discussed on the Bellarmine Forums, and we all know who he was on there, so he was certainly aware of them. Fr. Cekada was a teacher at Bp. Sanborn's "seminary" for many years, regularly flying back and forth between there and Cincinnati. I don't know the timeline, but it is most likely that he was also teacher of Fr. Desposito. It would be interesting to learn where he got these ideas. Either way, the credibility of Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada is ruined over all of this. Many Catholics who see through it all know that their explanations are not trustworthy and no longer learn from them. It's a shame because Fr. Cekada did produce some great work over the years, on many matters but most especially his work on the consecration rite of bishops. It's sad to see it now overshadowed by this mess. Anyway, I will get to your other points later.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 14, 2022 10:02:20 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
I think that would have been a fair point until "The Grain of Incense" was published. After that, the matter clearly shifted to the "una cum" matter which has taken on a life it's own and has overshadowed any debate over what you are bringing up here.
The problem in regards to a ministry in the Church cuts both ways, to the R&R groups and to the sedevacantists. A ministry is given by God through a commission, it can't be assumed. If God does not send one directly, then He may do so indirectly through his Church which has been given that power by Him. Neither the SSPX, sedevacantists or any traditional group has received a commission to do their work. It's a real problem for them, and has been one that they have all been hit hard on by the home-aloners. The home-aloners have many good arguments and good sources to support their position, where they go wrong is in their conclusions.
Let's use the SSPX to look at schism, since they are the largest of all the groups. First, there is the question of whether there is a true schism. Let's put it to the test. Does the SSPX withdraw from the Pope? We know they don't. Is Francis the Pope? If not, then there is no schism. It simply fails to meet the definition. Now, it might be argued that they may still commit the sin of schism by believing that Francis is Pope but in practice acting as he is not by not obeying him or learning from him as Pope. If this is the argument, then it has moved out of canon law to moral theology. In the realm of moral theology, there are many factors that must be considered, but most importantly what is the intent of the person. It appears to me that the SSPX priest's intent is not to disobey a Pope, but conversely, it is to keep their Catholic Faith by resisting an undeclared antipope.
Does this matter lead to a logical mess? Yes, absolutely it does. On one hand Catholics are absolutely not required to make a judgment against another without the judgment of the Church. They may make such a judgment if they form moral certainty about another, but even when a Catholic makes such a judgment, it remains his personal and private judgment which no one is required to agree with. Fr. Smith from SSPX states, "what Francis is doing is crazy, his permission of Pachamama idols is over the top, among so many other issues ,but with that said, I am reluctant to make any final determination about him prior to the judgment of the Church." Can Fr. Smith state this in good conscience? Yes, he most certainly can. Only the Church can bind a conscience and the Church has yet to bind him on this matter through its public judgment of Francis.
But, what if John Doe comes along bringing photos, writings, texts of speeches of Francis, etc. to Fr. Smith, and presents it all him to persuade Fr. Smith that Francis is indeed a public heretic? Yes and no. If Fr. Smith believes that Francis is a public heretic prior to the declaration of the Church, then he is bound to follow what he is morally certain is true. If he remains unconvinced, maybe thinking that there might be something he is missing and is not prepared to make a judgment, then he is equally acting in good conscience. No one, with the exception of the Pope can bind Fr. Smith's conscience on this.
Now, let's take this further. Fr. Smith agrees that John Doe's presentation is correct, and Francis is indeed a public heretic, what happens s next? Can Fr. Smith just keep doing what he's doing? Yes, he is not bound to remove the name of an undeclared heretic from the mass. He is not bound to do so until the Church judges the matter. He could simply say, "the bishops of the world, continue to recognize this papal claim, and it is not for me (especially as a non-canonical) priest to go before the Church and omit his name from my office and from the mass."
He should do what he can to combat Francis' errors against the Faith, he must keep his own Catholic Faith by being on guard, and in my opinion, continue to answer the requests of Catholics for the sacraments. Fr. Smith is not a member of the hierarchy, he cannot settle this matter publicly for the Church. It's an open question whether or not he must cease using the name of Francis in his mass prior to the judgment of the Church, He could rely on the law of the Fourth Council of Constantinople and continue using it until the Church settles the matter by judging Francis, or he could argue on his own authority that the matter is so far beyond what was envisioned by the Council that the principle doesn't apply in this case. I don't think anyone would fault him in this.
more later.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 14, 2022 10:25:13 GMT -5
Eric wrote:
Canon 2261 is a reflection of the Church's policy towards leniency that continues on from previous legislation. There is no doubt that so long as a priest remains an undeclared heretic or schismatic, that the principle as envisioned in the law applies. I'm happy to look at your sources that you are relying on in forming your opinion. It goes without saying that every priest in question must be taken on a case by case basis due to the significantly elevated risk of scandal, especially with those with children or those not grounded strongly in their Faith.
But, I am not here talking about undeclared heretics and schismatics at all! I am speaking about attendance at mass to validly ordained priests who profess the Catholic Faith and use the Catholic rites, while at the same time, at least nominally name Francis as pope. It's apples and oranges. Generally, I would say to avoid the masses of an undeclared heretic or schismatic, as the risks are too high. If Francis said the old mass, I wouldn't go, for example.
|
|
|
Post by samuelsede on Apr 14, 2022 19:19:02 GMT -5
Hello Pacelli, Some from the Cassiciacum Thesis crowd will claim that recognising Francis' false claim to the papacy is a requirement of faith, seeing as this conclusion is the only one which safeguards the Church's indefectibility; in fact, they may go so far as to say that we have 'the certainty of faith' in knowing that Francis is not a true pope, elevating this truth beyond the status of opinion. e.g. from Bp. Sanborn (though I'm not sure if he believes this position has the certainty of faith): "There is no gray area between these two possibilities. For the promises of Christ are so strong and so clear, that it is impossible to assert that a true Catholic hierarchy could universally promulgate doctrines, liturgy, and disciplines which constitute a defection from the Catholic Faith. To assert that this is a real possibility would be to deny implicitly the de fide doctrine of indefectibility. Point # 7. Consequently the traditionalist, who by his very actions declares that Vatican II and its reforms are a defection from the Catholic Faith, is bound logically to assert that the Novus Ordo hierarchy is not the true Catholic hierarchy. If he does not assert this, he is implicitly declaring that the Catholic Church has defected. This is why we say it is impossible that Bergoglio be pope, and that it is not merely a matter of opinion. It is a conclusion which is bound up with the Catholic Faith itself, and is demanded by it." inveritateblog.com/2020/03/17/indefectibility-and-una-cum/It seems this thinking is somewhat bound up in the anti-'una cum' policy, as later in the same article Bp. Sanborn states: "That these names [of the false hierarchy] should appear in a traditionalist Mass is, from what has been pointed out, a declaration of allegiance to a false hierarchy. It is to assert implicitly that the Catholic Church is capable of defection, and that the Catholic hierarchy can lead us to hell by its universally promulgated doctrines, liturgy, and discipline." Now, the response to this would be to say that until the Church has authoritatively decided the matter, Catholics are not bound under pain of sin to recognise these men as false popes, and if they do so they do not ipso facto become logically bound to assert the defection of the Church -- they are simply mistaken. Of course, they may and must recognise these false claimaints if, based on their understanding of Catholic doctrine as applied to the facts at hand, they become convinced with moral certainty that these men cannot be true popes; yet, this is their private (though certain) conclusion, not the authoritative judgement of the Church. To which someone might respond, "Ah, but the Church HAS already authoritatively settled this matter, as she teaches as a matter of Faith that the Church is indefectible, and we are merely applying this doctrine to incontrovertible facts and drawing the appropriate conclusion. Consequently there is here neither doubt, nor field of legitimate controversy, and to concede this notion to others is to implicitly call in to question the certainty of the indefectibility of the Church, something which cannot be admitted." Where does the respondent go wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Resolution on Apr 14, 2022 22:08:32 GMT -5
I too am keen to read your response Pacelli. I hope that you will post it soon.
|
|