|
Post by samuelsede on Jun 17, 2022 18:36:38 GMT -5
Thoughts on this thread were Fr. Desposito argues 'Una Cum' masses were not displeasing to God initially, but are now?
"2
He also says that if all una cum Masses are in themselves unlawful, it would mean that at one point in time every Mass was offensive to God, which is impossible." ..."8
Answer to the second objection (current una cum Masses cannot be unlawful today since at one point all Masses were offered in union with Vat2 popes).
Let us make important distinctions here."
... "9
The identity of the Roman Pontiff is able to be hidden from the Church. This is explicitly taught by Zapelena & Wilmers who say that during the GWS it was hypothetically possible to have three antipopes. What the Church cannot do is to recognize a false rule of faith." ..."10
So, at the time when it was morally impossible to know that Vat2 popes were not true popes, una cum Masses were pleasing to God. God does not ask the impossible. Through invincible ignorance an act which is materially wrong can be formally right & pleasing to God."
... "11
But invincible ignorance cannot be claimed forever regarding Vat2 popes - eventually Vatican II was properly studied & the logical conclusions drawn: at that point the obligation arose for all to avoid the una cum Mass." ... "If I am not mistaken, non-una cum Masses began to be said in the 70's. So, until it became evident that Vat2 was heretical, una cum Masses were lawful & pleasing to God, but that's no the case anymore. The knowledge of what really happened has created a moral obligation."
... "13
So, the point Dr. Marshall is trying to make, that at one point all Masses were unpleasing to God if the una cum Mass is wrong , is not true: there was no point in time were all Masses were offensive to God. The Church never followed a false rule of faith." ... "14
I must add: to say the una cum Mass *today* is immoral and illicit, since knowledge generates responsibility. Ignorance cannot be claimed by traditional Catholics. Traditionalism is by definition a reaction to Vatican II.
End of 🧵"
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 17, 2022 21:38:02 GMT -5
Except its not INCUMBANT on lay Catholics to worry about this. Una Cum or NUC...above our responsabilty and paygrade...simply being informed doesnt add to your lay responsability
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Jun 18, 2022 6:14:18 GMT -5
Thoughts on this thread were Fr. Desposito argues 'Una Cum' masses were not displeasing to God initially, but are now? " Ignorance cannot be claimed by traditional Catholics. Traditionalism is by definitio End of 🧵" I think the idea that Father Desposito is trying to make is the knowledge of something being evil is required for it to be a serious offense against God. When Vatican II first happened, almost everyone was confused as to what was happening, and so they were excused from making decisions about the papacy of the errors VII popes. The argument he makes now is that it is too obvious for anyone to not know that they are heretics and not Catholics and so to mention them in the Mass would be a great scandal and offense to God. My objection to this is that yes, people can come to this conclusion by the information now available. Yet not everyone has this information. And simple people can be mistaken and for this reason no one is obliged absolutely until the Church Authorities have made an official statement. As with the GWS (Great Western Schism)... Once the issue was resolved those in error were pardoned up to that time but after that had to be submissive. Therefore.... Though it may be preferred and more lauditory not to mention the names of the VII "popes" until a future pope officially condemns them it not obligatory. Also, many who mention the VII popes in the Mass do it specifically not to be schismatic because it has been said to be a serious fault not to mention a true Pope in the Mass. Hope my rambling makes some sense. 😅
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 12, 2022 8:33:58 GMT -5
Thoughts on this thread were Fr. Desposito argues 'Una Cum' masses were not displeasing to God initially, but are now? "2 He also says that if all una cum Masses are in themselves unlawful, it would mean that at one point in time every Mass was offensive to God, which is impossible." ..."8 Answer to the second objection (current una cum Masses cannot be unlawful today since at one point all Masses were offered in union with Vat2 popes). Let us make important distinctions here." ... "9 The identity of the Roman Pontiff is able to be hidden from the Church. This is explicitly taught by Zapelena & Wilmers who say that during the GWS it was hypothetically possible to have three antipopes. What the Church cannot do is to recognize a false rule of faith." ..."10 So, at the time when it was morally impossible to know that Vat2 popes were not true popes, una cum Masses were pleasing to God. God does not ask the impossible. Through invincible ignorance an act which is materially wrong can be formally right & pleasing to God." ... "11 But invincible ignorance cannot be claimed forever regarding Vat2 popes - eventually Vatican II was properly studied & the logical conclusions drawn: at that point the obligation arose for all to avoid the una cum Mass." ... "If I am not mistaken, non-una cum Masses began to be said in the 70's. So, until it became evident that Vat2 was heretical, una cum Masses were lawful & pleasing to God, but that's no the case anymore. The knowledge of what really happened has created a moral obligation." ... "13 So, the point Dr. Marshall is trying to make, that at one point all Masses were unpleasing to God if the una cum Mass is wrong , is not true: there was no point in time were all Masses were offensive to God. The Church never followed a false rule of faith." ... "14 I must add: to say the una cum Mass *today* is immoral and illicit, since knowledge generates responsibility. Ignorance cannot be claimed by traditional Catholics. Traditionalism is by definition a reaction to Vatican II. End of 🧵" The problem for his argument is that substantially nothing has changed in regard to masses said "una cum" with the undeclared antipope. The only changes are accidental. His argument fails. Here are some points to consider: 1. Bishop Sanborn argues that masses said "una cum" the antipope are objectively schismatic, which means that the ignorance of the priest is irrelevant. If Bp. Sanborn was correct, then the masses said during much of the time of Paul VI would all have been objectively schismatic, and the Church wound have failed, as this was every mass said on earth for many, many years. If Bp. Sanborn no longer holds this opinion, and yes, I say "opinion," then he has a duty to publicity retract it, as he has publicly confused many Catholics on this issue. 2. Who is Fr. Deposito to make a judgment of ignorance against so many priests that he doesn't even know or have evidence against? If they are ignorant, let him prove it on a case by case basis, with each accused being named and evidence provided. Btw, even if he does all this, no one has to agree with him on any of it, but at least he would have some substance to his accusation. The Church is ruled by authority, not private judgment. If he wants to rashly judge, that is his choice, although certainly not a good one, for someone who has access to moral theology books which explain that this is sinful. The reality is that there are many motives that explain why priests say mass "una cum" or continue to recognize Francis as the Pope, while not believing his heresies or errors. I can say with certainty as I know many such priests, and their reasons are not ignorance. 3. Much time has passed since the 1960's to today, but the one thing that has not changed is that the Church has yet to settle any of the unsettled matters of the crisis: the heterodoxy of Vatican II, the heretical statement of the undeclared antipopes, the illegal claims to the Papacy by the undeclared antipopes, the validity of the Novus Ordo, the validity of the Paul VI Confirmation rite, the validity of the Paul VI holy order rites, etc. etc. Nothing has been settled, not a single point. We are all relying on our own judgments, not the judgments of the Church. This fact is critical to unraveling the mess that Bp. Sanborn, Fr. Cekada, the SSPV and so many others have made and continue to make. When we judge things such as whether or not another is a heretic, or whether a sacramental rite is valid, etc., we are judging based on our own application of the facts to the theology, and this judgment that we make binds our own conscience alone, as we have an individual obligation to the truth. If another Catholic either disagrees with us, or is not convinced by us, then we cannot bind him to our judgment, even if we are correct! Another way of saying this is that we are not here talking about whether something is true, we are talking about the status of the truth. Only those with the power to bind given to them by Our Lord, the Pope and to a lesser extent the diocesan bishops can bind a Catholic to an unsettled matter. Bishop Sanborn cannot do this. Fr. Desposito cannot do this. The late Fr. Cekada could not do this. No one on earth right now can do this! 4. The claim to settle matters prior to the judgment of the Church is inherently schismatic. The signers of the 1983 letter to Archbishop Lefebvre knew this and clearly stated this in their latter. Yet today, this inconvenient truth is ignored as it no longer fits with the narrative that surrounds the groups that promote their own non-authority to settle disputes in the Church and in some cases to bind Catholics to that judgment. 5. Catholics must remain united with each other and not sever the fragile unity that remains during this very long crisis that has no end in sight. Unsettled matters must only be dealt with by good arguments and seeking the truth, not by pretending that anyone has authority to settle matters, even when it appears that the truth is "obvious"!
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2022 21:19:47 GMT -5
4. The claim to settle matters prior to the judgment of the Church is inherently schismatic. The signers of the 1983 letter to Archbishop Lefebvre knew this and clearly stated this in their latter. Yet today, this inconvenient truth is ignored as it no longer fits with the narrative that surrounds the groups that promote their own non-authority to settle disputes in the Church and in some cases to bind Catholics to that judgment. Hi Pacelli, I love reading your thoughts. I was wondering whether you could provide any historical examples of this for comparison purposes? For use the event that I might want to bring this point up in a conversation. I know very little history.
|
|
|
Post by samuelsede on Oct 1, 2022 23:14:14 GMT -5
Interesting tweets from Fr D:
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 2, 2022 10:04:20 GMT -5
I like when they intersperse the NO and Una Cum True Masses and then conflate them....oy vey
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 2, 2022 14:30:23 GMT -5
Interesting tweets from Fr D: It’s not that we have “legal” reasons, as though we are seeking some sort of legal loophole on this matter. It is he and his teacher, Donald Sanborn, who have perverted the Catholic teaching on this matter and are leading Catholics astray with potentially dire consequences for their eternal salvation. This poll highlights how many have been led astray by these and other men who have promoted this error.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Oct 2, 2022 15:14:22 GMT -5
Someone take the keyboard from this man!
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 2, 2022 16:45:35 GMT -5
4. The claim to settle matters prior to the judgment of the Church is inherently schismatic. The signers of the 1983 letter to Archbishop Lefebvre knew this and clearly stated this in their latter. Yet today, this inconvenient truth is ignored as it no longer fits with the narrative that surrounds the groups that promote their own non-authority to settle disputes in the Church and in some cases to bind Catholics to that judgment. Hi Pacelli, I love reading your thoughts. I was wondering whether you could provide any historical examples of this for comparison purposes? For use the event that I might want to bring this point up in a conversation. I know very little history. There is very little to nothing as far as an exact historical precedent for our situation. We have entered totally new ground. In Church history the principle was always that when there are disputes, Rome settles them. In our situation, at least since the time of Paul VI, we haven't had Rome to settle things. Some appear to think that Brooksville, Florida, (now Reading, PA), or Cincinnati. or Roundtop, NY, or Écône, among others can in effect be a new Rome and takes its place, but as we know such ideas are heretical or schismatic or both. Only the Pope can settle larger disputes among Catholics if it cannot be resolved at the diocesan or regional level. Those that substitute their judgment for that of the pope or to a lesser extent the hierarchical bishops, and then bind Catholics to this judgment are acting as a schismatic, as they are in practice pretending they have an office in the Catholic Church, to which the ruling (jurisdictional) power is attached, which are only reserved for the offices filled by the successors of the Apostles who were given this power by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2022 3:21:07 GMT -5
It’s not that we have “legal” reasons, as though we are seeking some sort of legal loophole on this matter. It is he and his teacher, Donald Sanborn, who have perverted the Catholic teaching on this matter and are leading Catholics astray with potentially dire consequences for their eternal salvation. This poll highlights how many have been led astray by these and other men who have promoted this error. This is why we need people to fight against this.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 3, 2022 10:06:50 GMT -5
It’s not that we have “legal” reasons, as though we are seeking some sort of legal loophole on this matter. It is he and his teacher, Donald Sanborn, who have perverted the Catholic teaching on this matter and are leading Catholics astray with potentially dire consequences for their eternal salvation. This poll highlights how many have been led astray by these and other men who have promoted this error. This is why we need people to fight against this. I agree with you, and I am seeing more and more that this error is spreading, and as it is grounded in a schismatic spirit, it very easily could end with yet another new schism, it needs more attention in exposing it. I will be devoting more time to this.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 3, 2022 23:56:59 GMT -5
I have an entire telegram Group attacking this issue...Also my faithful Admin...hows about doing a you tube discussion on My Joseph Brothers Channel? You dont have to be shown...just audio.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2022 0:23:19 GMT -5
I have an entire telegram Group attacking this issue...Also my faithful Admin...hows about doing a you tube discussion on My Joseph Brothers Channel? You dont have to be shown...just audio. With all due respect Joseph, (and I say this is a very respectful way) I've seen the way that the Guerardians have hunted down Fr Valerie, digging up dirt from all sources and spreading it over the internet because he publicly and vehemently opposed the Thesis. An example is in the thread below. They will be quick to discover your videos with Charles Coulombe and use his association with occultism to discredit you as the messenger. It would be hypocritical of them to do as True Restoration also produced an entire series with his name in it, but that is what they will do. That series has been scrubbed from the web but there is still some evidence of it in people's private files. If you are looking to do interviews Pacelli I might suggest Louie Verracchio who already done some (albeit not in-depth work) with John Lane on this topic. I would also be strongly recommend taking the offensive against the RCI and SGG on their denial of certain dogmas of the Church RE: the College of Bishops. It can be easily shown that the Guerardian and "totalist" positions on this subject are heretical. If you can show this to the faithful, they will be more open to listening to you on other issues like the no Una Cum position. John Lane is already on the same page in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 4, 2022 9:51:42 GMT -5
I have an entire telegram Group attacking this issue...Also my faithful Admin...hows about doing a you tube discussion on My Joseph Brothers Channel? You dont have to be shown...just audio. Thank you my friend, but my contribution to this will only be in writing. I don't care much for videos and even audio. I know it's more boring, but I prefer it. I'm working on things right now, but it will take a little while before I post it here.
|
|