|
Post by Didymus on Feb 8, 2023 11:31:00 GMT -5
Hello everyone, along with greetings, I am writing from South America, therefore I apologize beforehand for my bad English, I hope I can be very clear and anything that is not understood please let me know.
The reason for this thread is not for a debate, nor to do a deep analysis, I would just like to receive some advice from you with some conflicts that I still have. Like most of us who support the vacant seat, we have reached this position through articles or things on social networks, blogs, etc. Therefore, this hard sedevacantism led me to take a rather hard and sectarian position with respect to those who did not support this theological conclusion, committing the typical mistake of falling into pharisaism and calling groups like the FSSPX, etc., heretics and schismatics.
In my country the only thing we have is the FSSPX, but it is very far from where I live, almost 12 hours away, something like 900 km approximately. My conversion happened exactly the same year that the pandemic began and borders closed (approximately 3 years ago), therefore I could not even travel to where the FSSPX was. Then on the internet watching videos I met a priest who came to my country (he still comes) every 4 months, and performs Non Una Cum Masses, but with the pandemic drama and since the borders were closed he could not come in almost those 3 years I managed to contact him and receive his remote spiritual direction through WhatsApp, which helped me a lot. I needed to go to confession and receive Communion. When I asked him about the FSSPX, he told me that it is not prudent to attend with the FSSPX and that you could only going in danger of death obviously because he considers their position dangerous and they could confuse me, he was a priest who left Bishop Sanborn's seminary, but he also never told me that it was a mortal sin to attend with them but if he considers that they are in schism, simply He did not advise me and if I wanted to go he was not going to say anything approving or denying me, everything was left to my discretion. He does not support the Thesis but neither does he deny that there may be something legal there that can be redeemed. Unfortunately, his position never completely convinced me and I ended up staying alone at home, doing acts of perfect contrition and praying the Rosary. Later I began to study the topic "una Cum" and I came to the position of Bishop Pivarunas and the CMRI, where they did allow the faithful who have nothing to go with them. I mentioned it to this priest and it was the same thing, basically he did not recommend it to me, that in the long run led me to generate tremendous scruples since I knew the position of those who support the Cassiacum Thesis, and it led me to rule out any possibility of assist with the FSSPX for mortal sin.
Thank God I came across the writings of Mr. Lane and John S Daly and they have helped me a lot to get out of that rather sectarian stance on sedevacantism. I am still in the process of getting rid of all this, it has really hurt me, since all this time I have been alone at home, and the only thing I have is the FSSPX at 12 hours. Unfortunately, I also transmitted this hard line to my close ones and some see my radical position with horror, which I now want to try to compensate because it really is not good.
I adhere to the Sedevacantist Thesis since my conversion, I did not have to go through the Novus Ordo nor did I go to the FSSPX, therefore my situation of cleaning myself from false principles is still hard for me. These are my questions:
1) Since the FSSPX is so far away from me, is my absence justified on Obligation days?
2) If I move to a place where there are Non Una Cum Masses and an SSPX Mass, can I attend either of the 2 without distinction? Or is a sedevacant mass preferable?
3) If I move to a place where I only have Non Una Cum priests of the Thesis line, without agreeing with them on anything, can I attend the sacraments with them in peace?
4) I made my confirmation with one of the Bishops of Pivarunas. Should I repeat it with some bishop of the FSSPX?
5) Is it advisable to propagate the position of John Lane and John S Daly with other sedevacantes who follow a hard line or who perhaps are not aware of all this? Or is it better to keep the peace with others who are hardliners?
As I am in the process of taking in all the great work of Lane-Daly and I feel I will end up more confused if I start debating to help others take this position of moderate sedevacantism, now without being solidly stable on this issue. . I know it's the right thing to do but I just want to save my soul, who I can help and nothing else, I want to live my Catholic life in peace.
Sometimes I still have the conflict that if I recommend the FSSPX I am leading them to a schismatic mass or committing some sin. 6) Can I recommend my parents or loved ones or even friends to go to an SSPX Mass, while I go to a Non Una Cum?
7) If a friend has the 2 options FSSPX and Non Una Cum, where do I advise him to attend?
8) A person on facebook made me a comment that John S Daly had co-authored a sedefinista group in the British publishing house and that he denied Thuc's lines, however I have read that after he changed his position, do you have any writing in Thuc John Lane or John S Daly lines? I know all the conflict there is, I'm only interested in knowing if they take them for granted and you can go with them with peace of mind.
It really is a job that will take me time to clean up, because many of the hard-line arguments that have made us sedevacant today seem to be that they are not correct and to be able to train myself that moderate sedevacantism is assimilation. work and will surely put me in conflict with many other hardline sedevacantists I know personally.
I hope your patience and charity,
In Christ and Mary.
Tommy
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2023 16:22:47 GMT -5
+AMDG+ Hi Tommy, Welcome and thank you for sharing your journey. My responses to your questions may differ from those of others, but I will provide them nonetheless. I would always recommend talking with people more experienced than myself especially priests whom you can trust have the Faith and haven't adopted novel ideas. 1. My understanding is the rule is that you aren't obligated to attend Mass at a Church if the travel distance is more than 1 hour. You should still try and attend as frequently as you can. Ensure that the priest was trained at an SSPX seminary and has been ordained by them. There are some non-Priests in the SSPX in America who weren't conditionally-ordained after leaving the conciliar sect. 2. I recommend reading this article by Fr Stepanich for more guidance on this question. I have the option to attend a no Una Cum Mass on Sundays, but not other days of obligation. Unfortunately the priest doesn't practice the Catholic Faith in his own personal life and has openly said that he is not striving for sanctity. It is very difficult to worship God in the Mass when the conduct of the priest includes profaning God's altar. There are thus more criteria to take into consideration than just whether a Mass in Una Cum or not. The spiritual life of the priest is very important if he is to be a useful instrument of God and lead souls to sanctity. 3. For now you can. Ensure that you know their errors well and the dangers of attending their services. Also, beware of adopting their incorrect attitudes and behaviours towards other Catholics who are not affiliated with them or their friends. 4. As far as I can tell, the Thuc line is valid. Abp Thuc was a source of many scandals, but it doesn't alter the validity of the orders of those whose lineage came from him. I don't believe there is any need to be reconfirmed by an SSPX Bishop. 5. Having been converted by sectarians, I found this article by Fr Vermeersch (1913) to be quite helpful in how Catholics should behave towards those we think are in error. I would recommend sharing Fr Stepanich's article linked above if this is about the no-Una Cum position. Unlike most of its proponents Fr Stepanich was ordained prior to Vatican II and therefore has a mission from the Church. They are obliged to hear him as they hear Christ "he who hears you, hears me." As far as I know this does not apply to any of the no Una Cum proponents, except the originator of the idea, Bp des Lauriers and he said attendance was a matter of conscience, placing the salvation of souls above all else, as indicated in the quoted below: In regards to other topics, if people are open to reading Mr Lane and Mr Daly's articles then I would share them. Many are not willing to read the works of laymen though, even though they hold just as much authority in the Church as many sectarian priests and bishops (i.e. none). I have found the series that John did with Louie Verrachio available here to be more helpful as a starting point than their articles. 6. It would be strange of you to be going to different masses, but you could do that. The salvation of souls comes first and if they aren't ready to accept the sedevacantist position then it is a better place for them to be than an indult mass with no valid priest. 7. See my previous answers for guidance on this question. There are a lot of factors to take into account. 8. I wasn't aware of this, so hopefully someone else can assist. Yours in Christ, R
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 9, 2023 10:58:09 GMT -5
Dear Tommy, I have some thoughts in addition to Resolution's post above. The entire argument of the NUC (non-una cum) folks is built on a house of sand. Once scrutiny is given to their claims and their use of sources, it falls. There is no law in the Catholic Church that forbids attendance at mass said by a Catholic priest, using the Catholic rite, who errs on the matter of who the pope is. If there was a law, believe me, they would have cited it, and yet they have not. What they have presented is a line of reasoning, a construct, that if you follow, step by step, you will reach their conclusion. If you want to see the truth of this, simply look at the arguments put forward, and test those arguments, by applying rigorous criticism to them. Look up the sources, and see if they fit. I can assure you that the more I have time to post on this, the readers of this forum see that their arguments are not good, and even so far in one case, when the original source was looked up, that the source didn't even support the argument at all! The men pushing this line of thinking have the burden to prove their case, as they are arguing for many Catholics to either give up the sacraments altogether, or potentially reduce their reception of the sacraments, maybe even significantly. They are arguing something that expressly goes against the spirit and the letter of the law of the Catholic Church, which in the matter of the reception of the sacraments is very liberal, not restrictive. The Church even allows Catholics to request the sacraments from excommunicates! The Church allows Catholics to request confession from those priests validly ordained in a schismatic sect in danger of death! Is it reasonable to believe that in a crisis of this magnitude that the Church would restrict Catholics from going to the mass of a validly ordained Catholic priest, one who believes the Faith, who uses the Catholics rite, merely because he errs on the matter of who the pope is, which by the way, is not a matter the Church has settled yet? Clearly, if the Church wanted to restrict us, they would have, but the fact is that there is no restriction on Catholics in this instance from the law of the Church. The only "restriction" here is that which exists in the minds of the proponents of these ideas, and as of yet, to this day, even though being directly challenged repeatedly by John Lane, many years ago, on the Bellarmine Forums, to show a law on this, they failed to do so. All they have is a line of reasoning, that they think obliges Catholics, not a law, and the worst thing is that their reasoning is deeply flawed, and anyone who tests this by actually examining it with a critical eye will see this. Their reasoning has never been examined by the Church. You owe them no deference in this. They are telling you to give up the life-giving sacraments in essays and speeches that enjoy no approval from the Church, therefore, they are on their own in saying what they are saying. The Catholic Church has not taught you what they are saying. I strongly urge you to demand of these people to show the law which states what they are saying, and wait for the answer: "there is no law, but, but, but, Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn say...." I hope to have more time to continue my analysis of the "Grain of Incense" soon, but I invite you to read some of the critical examination of it, along with many other resources that have answered their claims on our "Non-Una Cum Refutation Library," linked HERE
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Feb 12, 2023 16:00:58 GMT -5
Dear Tommy, I have some thoughts in addition to Resolution's post above. The entire argument of the NUC (non-una cum) folks is built on a house of sand. Once scrutiny is given to their claims and their use of sources, it falls. There is no law in the Catholic Church that forbids attendance at mass said by a Catholic priest, using the Catholic rite, who errs on the matter of who the pope is. If there was a law, believe me, they would have cited it, and yet they have not. What they have presented is a line of reasoning, a construct, that if you follow, step by step, you will reach their conclusion. If you want to see the truth of this, simply look at the arguments put forward, and test those arguments, by applying rigorous criticism to them. Look up the sources, and see if they fit. I can assure you that the more I have time to post on this, the readers of this forum see that their arguments are not good, and even so far in one case, when the original source was looked up, that the source didn't even support the argument at all! The men pushing this line of thinking have the burden to prove their case, as they are arguing for many Catholics to either give up the sacraments altogether, or potentially reduce their reception of the sacraments, maybe even significantly. They are arguing something that expressly goes against the spirit and the letter of the law of the Catholic Church, which in the matter of the reception of the sacraments is very liberal, not restrictive. The Church even allows Catholics to request the sacraments from excommunicates! The Church allows Catholics to request confession from those priests validly ordained in a schismatic sect in danger of death! Is it reasonable to believe that in a crisis of this magnitude that the Church would restrict Catholics from going to the mass of a validly ordained Catholic priest, one who believes the Faith, who uses the Catholics rite, merely because he errs on the matter of who the pope is, which by the way, is not a matter the Church has settled yet? Clearly, if the Church wanted to restrict us, they would have, but the fact is that there is no restriction on Catholics in this instance from the law of the Church. The only "restriction" here is that which exists in the minds of the proponents of these ideas, and as of yet, to this day, even though being directly challenged repeatedly by John Lane, many years ago, on the Bellarmine Forums, to show a law on this, they failed to do so. All they have is a line of reasoning, that they think obliges Catholics, not a law, and the worst thing is that their reasoning is deeply flawed, and anyone who tests this by actually examining it with a critical eye will see this. Their reasoning has never been examined by the Church. You owe them no deference in this. They are telling you to give up the life-giving sacraments in essays and speeches that enjoy no approval from the Church, therefore, they are on their own in saying what they are saying. The Catholic Church has not taught you what they are saying. I strongly urge you to demand of these people to show the law which states what they are saying, and wait for the answer: "there is no law, but, but, but, Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn say...." I hope to have more time to continue my analysis of the "Grain of Incense" soon, but I invite you to read some of the critical examination of it, along with many other resources that have answered their claims on our "Non-Una Cum Refutation Library," linked HEREDear Resolution and Pacelli, I appreciate your charity for this soul in the southern corners of the world. I will treasure your advice and all the information you provide and I am really very interested in following the thread of the Incense Grain. I got a Missal from my pre-conciliar country and precisely in the Te Igitur it does not say "in union with" but it says "We offer it to you for your servant the Sovereign Pontiff N. for our Prelate N. and for all the Orthodox faithful, who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith." And in the other Missal by Gaspar Lefebvre it says "together with your Servant our Pope N." The prayer in both missals is very different, but it is understood that the Mass is offered by the Church, the Pope and others and not in kind by "through the Pope" in this case of the heretic. Please, I have some more questions that are also going around me, if possible I would really appreciate it if you could answer them all, because I am quite perplexed and confused in many things that may perhaps be obvious. The questions are the following: 1) Can I pray the rosary with the SSPX and if they name Bergoglio offering the Rosary am I participating in public prayer for the heretic? I have heard in the sung prayers of Holy Week, the priest says out loud "let us pray for our Pope Francis and the bishops who reign the Church" in Latin or something like that is what they say. And in the Te Igitur, what should I do at that moment, or think internally so as not to consent to that error of Fact? Pick myself up inside and ask God to free me from that error? 2) On social networks I have had some people from the FSSPX in my country and they have seen that I am a sedevacantist (obviously in my wrong facet of what today the sedepreviciondstas call "totalist" mixed with an "anti una cum" and sometimes as a sectarian I was very harsh at times, what happens if one of them recognizes me in the Church and then tells the priest that I am a sedevacantist and then they expel me? Or otherwise, how should I act in this situation without denying my position or lying and be someone prudent? 3) I know that Archbishop Lefebvre knew that the new canon law of the 80's had heresies and he accepted the reforms of John XXIII. How could this be justified? Being aware of that, how is it possible that he accepted it? Is there something serious in this? 4)I know that John XXIII left the Mass essentially intact, however, are the reforms he introduced legal? Was there a change of Holy Week left by Pius XII in the Roncalli Missal? And if in the place where I live I have the Holy Week of Pius XII celebrated by a priest of the CMRI, or of the FSSPX or of the followers of Saint Pius X, which one should I go to? Can I go to any of the 3 if he is the only one I have on hand? 5)I have a 5-year-old nephew, I baptized him in the middle of a pandemic with closed borders even within the country, therefore it was impossible until I went to the FSSPX at that time and the only thing I had was the Novus ordo here, however, the Sedevacantist priest who gave me spiritual direction based on a theology book that I have kept from 1940. This book says that if a priest does not come to the campaign areas before 8 days, the child must be baptized, with the duty of take it to a priest when possible to complete the baptismal rite. Then this priest told me to baptize him asking for his parents' authorization, who gave me his authorization and I was able to baptize him. However, the rite was never completed with him, and it is very difficult for the parents to want to go to the FSSPX since we are very far from the capital, almost 12 hours away, since they are not actually practitioners and cannot travel. for work and the child goes to school. Is it necessary to try to persuade them to go to the FSSPX in 12 hours (about 900 km)? Or should I stop worrying? I also know that when there are cases of necessity it is not necessary to complete the rite (especially since their parents do not practice the Faith and know less about traditionalism). 6)How can I leave at least one memory to one child about the Catholic Church? All the temples in my city were completed after Vatican II, they have almost no ancient vestiges, they are all 100% modernist, therefore there are no Tridentine altars, nothing, everything is modern. Any advice for educating a child about the situation of the Church? How do you talk about the Pope and all that? Sometimes I take him to some of these modern Churches just so that he grows with a "vision" of the Church, since without a physical image it is difficult, I hope I am not failing in that. I have met with 2 sedevacantist people from here, a woman and a man, who I met as a result of this sedevacantist priest, and we have become close, I actually have more affinity with this older woman than with the man, he even entered to the seminar (there they continue the thesis and are anti una cum). The woman is scandalized with the masses where Bergoglio is named, but she is a little more open to attending the FSSPX if she needs to confess and stuff, but she has the typical mistake of believing that sedevacantist bishops can "authorize or disauthorize" one whether or not to go to a place, and she has the mentality that if the bishop says this or such a priest, then she is going to follow him (with a good conscience of course) and prefers (out of ignorance of this) to refrain from going with the FSSPX is satisfied with the few visits that they cannot make per year that do not exceed 3 visits. I tried to talk about it with them, but I got a little nervous since I'm not really prepared for this type of debate, I did it because I want to try to make them see all this mess, and be able to receive the sacraments that they are refraining from, especially her Because the man is in the Argentine seminary. In the end, I ended up arguing with the man and there was an awkward moment. It's hard for me to argue all that, because the counter arguments are typical of anti una cum 7)What should I do when there is an "anti una cum" bishop in this case directing the faithful here? This Bishop knows me and I have been faithful to him since my conversion, many people where he is from know me…. I don't think I'm capable of entering into a debate with him about why he would take the option of going to the FSSPX, . 8) Should I just keep it to myself so as not to cause scandal? I think that the majority who follow Guerardian sedevacantism, anti una cum would automatically label you as an apostate heretic, in fact I had a small discussion with this man and it was quite uncomfortable since we are only 3. I tried to take him away because of the position of the CMRI that I am aware of that John Lane does not agree 100%, but I think it is a tactic to avoid the typical disputes or scandals on his part of "apostate, heretic" etc. ., after the discussion he told me "go calmly to the FSSPX" but in a sarcastic and ironic and very unpleasant way. This man argued that one must have a "right conscience" etc, and that many of the priests of the SSPX know that Bergoglio is not Pope and they insert him anyway, therefore they would not be acting in "right conscience" I replied that Sanborn did not have jurisdiction to prohibit the sacraments to someone who goes with the FSSPX, he replied "yes for a moral issue", my problem was that I am not prepared to defend this position, and I tried to make this position known to them but it really produces a rejection and I got a little nervous and I didn't argue too well, my arguments were very poorly formulated, therefore everything was left up in the air, as a simple "whim" of a desperate man who has nothing sedevacantist and for that reason he will go to the FSSPX and that is what you need me to do "wanting to find excuses" to take away the gravity of the position of the fsspx, something almost like "geography makes theology" and a somewhat dense climax was created, that's why I ask what I should do in this case. 9) What attitude should be taken towards those who follow that line after so long sharing that anti una cum sedevacantism? Keep sharing without accepting your mistakes or walk away? 10) Is there a spiritual director or a group on Whats app or Telegram with whom you can share conversations on these issues that is not infected with anti una cum and is a sedevacantist and trustworthy? 11) To the people that I have ever advised in the past not to go to “una cum” or to the people that I have told you that the “last Pope was Pius XII” exercising the sedevacante, since I had never considered the dubious possibilities of maybe John XXIII could have been a Pope (is this about John XXIII correct or was he an antipope for sure?) ? 12) If they ask me who was the last Pope, should I retract and write to them to try to amend that Pius XII is perhaps not the last Pope or continue to maintain that he was the last Pope? what should i say then? some people I know came close to sedevacantism for these typical arguments. 13) What should I do if I go to the SSPX and the priest asks me how I got into the tradition, etc. or if I did my confirmation? Do I openly confess that I did it with a bishop of the Thuc line? since Some priests of the FSSPX are anti-sedevacantists and I am afraid that they will end up expelling me from the only place where at the moment I can receive the sacraments sporadically. 14) If I found an 80-year-old priest in my city, that means he was ordained before Vatican II, could I try to convince him and ask him to confess me and even ask for a private Tridentine Mass in the ancient Latin rite and perhaps my loved ones? 15) In what period are we? I know this is a mystery, but according to you, perhaps close to the parousia and the period of the antichrist perhaps and the Apocalypse? Or do you think there will be a restoration of the Church and several centuries will pass like this before the antichrist? 16) I read this in one of the blog articles: "Non-una-cum is Protestantism with a Tridentine veneer. Simple as that. Catholics should be happy to go to any valid Mass they have, and the CMRI does excellent work. It would be an honor to go to theirs, or any valid priest's chapel for Mass. May I ask you to explain why it is "Protestantism with a Tridentine veneer"? , I'm just coming out of this misconception of "anti una cum" and I would like to know what you say in more depth." 17) Would you mind explaining to me what is the difference between "Bellarmine" and "Guerardarian" sedevacantists? I think John S Daly wrote something about it on the Bellarmine forums. Do you still have this article? Please excuse me for so many questions, but I am in that period of intellectual "purification" and I really still feel quite confused, even in things that may be obvious. It would be great to be able to share in a group of social networks or something to be closer, surely there are many people who have come out of this sectarian form of sedevacantism. I really feel a little sorry for the faithful that I have found here in my country, since I can see how deceived they can be and I feel responsible and guilty because some of them I myself led them to see this wrong form of sedevacantism and today it would be serious to face even to the same priests or Bishop who guide them and can be a source of scandal. God have mercy on me in these days of confusion, because I know that the evil one always puts his tail in to confuse us. God pay you this charity with me Sincerely, Tommy
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2023 17:14:33 GMT -5
I'm going to ask some of the more wise and prudent on the forum to answer Tommie's questions this time around as I am living somewhere where a state of emergency has been declared (and is probably justified) and need to focus on other things at this time.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Feb 12, 2023 18:24:00 GMT -5
I'm going to ask some of the more wise and prudent on the forum to answer Tommie's questions this time around as I am living somewhere where a state of emergency has been declared (and is probably justified) and need to focus on other things at this time. God and the Virgin protect you, I hope it is nothing serious. I thank you for your kindness in answering my first questions, an affectionate greeting. Thommy
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Feb 13, 2023 6:10:59 GMT -5
Hi Tommy,
Welcome to the forum!
I think that you will find that without a Shepherd on earth to guide the faithful that the sheep are scattered and have diverse opinions about how to react to the varying crises in the Church during this day and age. Until the day when the papacy is restored it is important to remember that no one has the full power and authority to make a final judgement of the crisis we are going through. That being said, I will try and give some basic answers to your questions as best I understand. May anyone who knows better please correct me and give you better advice.
1) Yes, you can pray the rosary with the SSPX and also in fact novus ordo Catholics as they have never been actually condemned by the True Church. That being said, you can definitely be silent when they pray something you don't agree with. Until the Church judges it officially, we can make the decision to refrain for ourselves but we can not force it upon others.
2) During COVID my husband and I temporarily hosted an SSPX Mission because our normal chapel was temporarily closed. The SSPX priest who held the mission knew our opinions about sedevacantism but as long as we didn't make a big deal about it he didn't seem bothered. I would think that as long as you don't create tension, most people probably won't care that you hold the sede position.
3) Archbishop Lefebvre from what I understand believed that the reformed canon Law was a different subject from John XXIII's reforms. One was openly heretical, the other imperfect but within the limit of what a true Pope could do. Many clergy were confused during the 60's-80's and he was trying to do the best he could with what he knew about the situation.
4) Many people argue about the differences of the New vs. Old Holy Weeks. I prefer the Old one myself but technically the new one does not have anything heretical of which I am aware. So, you could attend whichever was in your area.
5). In the case of your nephew's baptism as long as you used the proper simple form and matter, I would not press the matter to have the rest of the Rite completed. If the parents wish to do so at a later time they may but it is definitely not required if there is no priest within a reasonable distance.
6). Teach the child to know his traditional Catholic catechism. That was the beginning for my becoming a traditional Catholic even though my family was novus ordo. Certain things could only be answered by the traditional Catholic Faith.
...There is no need for you to have to argue with the sedevacantist people in your area. That is the job for priests and clergy and the true hierarchy of the church. You can always answer that you just don't know what to say or don't agree but don't want to argue. Lay people are not obligated to be theologians but we are obliged to live the Faith. I personally believe that charity and humility are the key to being a good traditional Catholic in this day and age.
7) I wouldn't try and argue with the anti-una-cum bishop. You don't have to justify your actions to him nor convince him. Instead pray for him, be thankful for what good things you have learned from him and leave everything else in God's Hands.
8) Yes, that might be best. Silence is golden but always be truthful if someone asks you a question. Just give them a simple answer but don't press the matter.
9) If you wish you can share that your opinions have changed but I don't think you are obligated to as neither side has officially been decided on by the Church.
10) I wish I knew who to direct you to. In general I would recommend the CMRI to you but I don't agree with them on everything. You would have loved my former confessor Father Joseph Collins but he sadly passed away a few years ago.
11) There are varying opinions about the papacy of John XXIII. The final decision of his case can only be decided by a future true Pope. The biggest thing is to avoid anything that seems "not traditionally Catholic" until the day that we have a good pope.
12). You can say, "I believe that Pius XII was the last pope." Or "I am not absolutely sure."
13) If you go to the SSPX and they ask you questions. Just be truthful but don't push out information you don't need to give. In general most SSPX priests will let you attend their chapels even if you are a sedevacantist as long as you don't cause drama.
14) Yes, you absolutely could try and convince any legitimately and validly ordained old priest to confess you in you can find one who is willing. We almost had such a priest marry me and my husband. He agreed to it but then his bishop overruled it. So, then my out of town confessor traveled many hours instead to officiate our wedding. 😅
15) It is not necessary to know what period of the Church we are in, but it is necessary to keep the Faith. That being said... I personally believe that there will be a restoration of the Catholic Church. How else would our Lady of Fatima's words ring true that "In the end her Immaculate Heart would triumph". I also believe that the conversion of the Jews has not happened yet and that is supposed to happen before the official end times and the Antichrist. As Our Lord rose from the tomb so I believe also will the Church in a similar sense.
16) I think the idea is that "non una cum" people make a decision themselves that only a Pope can validly make. This putting themselves above the papacy is similar is some ways to protestantism even if well-intentioned.
17) I am not familiar with the difference between "Bellarmine" and "Guerardarian" sedevacantists so I can not help you there. Maybe it is the difference of totalism sedevacantism vs the thesis?
Please don't apologize for asking questions. We are all here for you and happy to see you seeking the truth.
That being said... I wouldn't try and push traditional Catholicism on people who aren't ready for it. This tends to push them further away in my experience. Yet, if someone comes to you seeming interested and asks you questions then you can tell them what you know.
I understand that it is hard to be in a country where there aren't a lot of Mass options or traditional Catholics. When King Kigeli of Rwanda died there was a man at his funeral who said that he was literally the only traditional Catholic left in his country. We are all secluded from one another. Even those who attend our slightly larger chapel here on the East Coast of the U.S. often travel an hour or two regularly to attend Mass on Sundays.
Keep fighting the good fight and may God bless you!
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Feb 13, 2023 6:11:26 GMT -5
I'm going to ask some of the more wise and prudent on the forum to answer Tommie's questions this time around as I am living somewhere where a state of emergency has been declared (and is probably justified) and need to focus on other things at this time. Praying for you and your area. 🙏
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 13, 2023 16:23:30 GMT -5
Thommie,
I don't have much more to add to what Rita wrote you, as I think she covered everything very well. I will add a couple comments however.
1. Whether or not John XXIII was a pope or not is irrelevant to his laws taking force. I think it's an open question as to his legitimacy, but in many ways it's a moot point, as to practicalities. There is no doubt that his laws were not evil, and his laws were certainly Traditional. The fact is that the entire Catholic world believed he was pope, and due to that common error, even if he wasn't the pope, his laws would have been supplied by the Church.
In my opinion, I believe the 1962 missal being the last Traditional missal of the Church is the missal of the Roman Rite. I also believe there is great confusion on these matters, so obviously, unity must not be breached with Catholics who use the former disciplines.
2. The term, "Bellarminist" refers to those who hold that the Pope may lose his office before any declaration of the Church. The term "Guerardarian" refers to those who think the Petrine succession is continued by a man claiming to be pope. The Guerardarian position, in my opinion, on this matter is at a minimum an error, amd at its worst a heresy. The bigger problem, in my opinion, is that the "Guerdarians" are no longer focused just on the papacy, but have now extended their idea to all of the diocesan sees in the world, pretending that the material succession is sufficient to continue this succession, and there are no real and living men in these offices. This newer "Guerdarianism is certainly heretical.
There is now a newer term, that I have seen called, "totalist," which is not clearly defined, but which seems to defined as the Papal and all episcopal sees are vacant, which is a heretical proposition as if, of this is truly what the proponents believe is heretical.
3. Fwiw, if you want my opinion, go to both masses, the one said by this bishop and the SSPX. This bishop has no jurisdiction over you, so go to his mass, and you don't need to obey him or listen to him if he tells you that you can't go to the SSPX. If it becomes too big of a problem, or if he denies Holy Communion, because you go to the SSPX, then just go to SSPX.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2023 3:49:01 GMT -5
I'm going to ask some of the more wise and prudent on the forum to answer Tommie's questions this time around as I am living somewhere where a state of emergency has been declared (and is probably justified) and need to focus on other things at this time. God and the Virgin protect you, I hope it is nothing serious. I thank you for your kindness in answering my first questions, an affectionate greeting. Thommy You're welcome Tommie, I made the same journey you have made with the help of a friend not that long ago and am eternally grateful to be free of the sectarian mindset which is truly a grave obstacle in the spiritual life. Fortunately, my sphere of influence was very limited so there weren't too many people affected by that mindset but it was detrimental to those in my immediate family, though they would have still been going to the Novus Ordo if God hadn't intervened through my circumstances. I have found this article to be particularly helpful in regards to personal attitude adjustment. I am interested in what Pacelli thinks about those who promote the NUC position and the idea that they may have a protestant rule of faith. I am seeing this being proposed by some, but don't like to draw such conclusions because of the depth of the crisis. However there is some evidence in support of such of a proposition: - Many of them reject the liturgical reforms promulgated by the last Pope we all agree was Pope and they believe to have been Pope. The Church is infallible in her liturgy, yet they reject her approved liturgy in favour of their own preferences;
- They also attempt to bind the consciences of the laity on positions the Church has not ruled upon - i.e. their own opinions under pain of mortal sin and with the penalty of the loss of the sacraments;
- Finally, they have rejected the Churches' teaching on herself, specifically Apostolic Succession in favour of their own interpretations. From personal experience the priests who hold this view anyone who doesn't hold their point of view as being in error and it seems unthinkable to them that their teachers might have erred when instructing them on this topic.
I certainly would not use this as a reason for not attending their services in the absence of an alternative, as the sacraments are morally necessary for salvation. However individuals doing so should be aware of their errors so they might reject them.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Feb 14, 2023 10:47:10 GMT -5
God and the Virgin protect you, I hope it is nothing serious. I thank you for your kindness in answering my first questions, an affectionate greeting. Thommy You're welcome Tommie, I made the same journey you have made with the help of a friend not that long ago and am eternally grateful to be free of the sectarian mindset which is truly a grave obstacle in the spiritual life. Fortunately, my sphere of influence was very limited so there weren't too many people affected by that mindset but it was detrimental to those in my immediate family, though they would have still been going to the Novus Ordo if God hadn't intervened through my circumstances. I have found this article to be particularly helpful in regards to personal attitude adjustment. I am interested in what Pacelli thinks about those who promote the NUC position and the idea that they may have a protestant rule of faith. I am seeing this being proposed by some, but don't like to draw such conclusions because of the depth of the crisis. However there is some evidence in support of such of a proposition: - Many of them reject the liturgical reforms promulgated by the last Pope we all agree was Pope and they believe to have been Pope. The Church is infallible in her liturgy, yet they reject her approved liturgy in favour of their own preferences;
- They also attempt to bind the consciences of the laity on positions the Church has not ruled upon - i.e. their own opinions under pain of mortal sin and with the penalty of the loss of the sacraments;
- Finally, they have rejected the Churches' teaching on herself, specifically Apostolic Succession in favour of their own interpretations. From personal experience the priests who hold this view anyone who doesn't hold their point of view as being in error and it seems unthinkable to them that their teachers might have erred when instructing them on this topic.
I certainly would not use this as a reason for not attending their services in the absence of an alternative, as the sacraments are morally necessary for salvation. However individuals doing so should be aware of their errors so they might reject them. This is an excellent post. I know that not many are in a similar situation as I guess that most men in this situation do not have families. However, I do want to add that if one did have to abstain from going to a mass with a NUC priest, it might be for the sake of his family. This would have to be weighed out carefully but in a case where it will harm a spouse or children by dividing or scandalizing the family, I would very carefully consider this. I personally do take my children to mass at a place where most do not hold our position. My children are all versed in the defense against the NUC, Totalist, and Guerardarian positions as is appropriate for their ages. They understand the role of the traditionalists priests and bishops. For our situation, it is not likely that any of them will adopt a sectarian mindset and there is no danger to them at present to attend mass in such places. Granted, this is probably unusual and perhaps some families will find a different solution should they find themselves in a similar place.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 14, 2023 12:20:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Feb 15, 2023 11:10:10 GMT -5
Thommie, I don't have much more to add to what Rita wrote you, as I think she covered everything very well. I will add a couple comments however. 1. Whether or not John XXIII was a pope or not is irrelevant to his laws taking force. I think it's an open question as to his legitimacy, but in many ways it's a moot point, as to practicalities. There is no doubt that his laws were not evil, and his laws were certainly Traditional. The fact is that the entire Catholic world believed he was pope, and due to that common error, even if he wasn't the pope, his laws would have been supplied by the Church. In my opinion, I believe the 1962 missal being the last Traditional missal of the Church is the missal of the Roman Rite. I also believe there is great confusion on these matters, so obviously, unity must not be breached with Catholics who use the former disciplines. 2. The term, "Bellarminist" refers to those who hold that the Pope may lose his office before any declaration of the Church. The term "Guerardarian" refers to those who think the Petrine succession is continued by a man claiming to be pope. The Guerardarian position, in my opinion, on this matter is at a minimum an error, amd at its worst a heresy. The bigger problem, in my opinion, is that the "Guerdarians" are no longer focused just on the papacy, but have now extended their idea to all of the diocesan sees in the world, pretending that the material succession is sufficient to continue this succession, and there are no real and living men in these offices. This newer "Guerdarianism is certainly heretical. There is now a newer term, that I have seen called, "totalist," which is not clearly defined, but which seems to defined as the Papal and all episcopal sees are vacant, which is a heretical proposition as if, of this is truly what the proponents believe is heretical. 3. Fwiw, if you want my opinion, go to both masses, the one said by this bishop and the SSPX. This bishop has no jurisdiction over you, so go to his mass, and you don't need to obey him or listen to him if he tells you that you can't go to the SSPX. If it becomes too big of a problem, or if he denies Holy Communion, because you go to the SSPX, then just go to SSPX. God pay you all your charity, I am very grateful for all your advice and sincere words, I only have a few more things to solve, I leave them attached here to Mr. Pacelli since apparently he is the most knowledgeable on the subject, however everyone The tips are important to me, I attach them here: 1) I understand that it has been said that the current sedevacantist or fsspx priests are not canonical. Does this mean that they are private priests, to put it in vulgar language, since they belong to congregations that have not been made by the Hierarchy? But in the case of Archbishop Thuc or Archbishop Lefebvre, were they not part of that hierarchy? Can it be considered that they have been ordained outside the Church from a hierarchical line? I ask because it reminds me a lot of the typical argument of Sedefinistas and home alone that we cannot attend with them because they say that "they were ordained and consecrated outside the church", however I read an article by John S Daly that reproaches this Argument to the sedefinistas that priests have been ordained outside the Church. Quote “Introduction to Sectarian Sedevacantism” John S Daly: “Here too the main argument of most home alone is based on the notion that those who have received Holy Orders since Vatican II have received them outside of church. In other words, it is based on a sectarian answer to the first question. Therefore, my articles against sectarian sedevacantism can also be useful in responding to the "home alone" position. 2) So, what is the role or status of the traditional sedevacantist priests and the FSSPX? I know that they do not have ordinary jurisdiction, but what does it mean that they must recognize their current status and that they do not have a status within the Church and a "misio", in abnormal times like today the law must be followed exactly if it is harmful? As I have seen in some articles here in the forum that Canon 2261 is cited, it refers to requesting the sacraments for any person excommunicated for just cause. 3) Should sedevacantist or SSPX priests and bishops be considered excommunicated for having been ordained outside the mandate of the Church? Or is the canon only cited to emphasize the meaning of asking for your sacraments for a just cause? Because I understand that the argument of the CMRI, for example, says that there is a historical precedent for episcopal consecrations without a pontifical mandate during the long interregnum (Clement IV and Gregory XI) and that they were later recognized, although in the time of PIO XII they consecrated without a mandate it was ipso fact of excommunication, however in our times and in the face of the great crisis that we are experiencing, CMRI says that “many traditional Catholics fall into error. this. Saint Thomas Aquinas defines the law as an ordinance of just reason made for the common good and promulgated by who has authority in that society. Let us note that it is made for the common good. In the time of Pius XII, no bishop could legally consecrate another bishop without a mandate, and this was for the common good of the Church. However, a law, over time and due to a radical change in circumstances, can cease to be for the common good and, as such, is no longer mandatory. A law can cease in two ways: by extrinsic cessation (the legislator repeals the law) and intrinsic (ceases to be law when it no longer serves the common good). To survive spiritually, we need today the graces of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacraments. But to get them, we need priests; and to have priests, we need bishops. In the article posted on the "The Church of Christ is Apostolic" forum, Rev. James J. McGovern, DD quoted: "Saint Paul himself sent Titus, as already stated, that is, he authorized and commissioned him to govern the Church in Crete. and ordains pastors under him; and he says, in another place: "How can they preach if they are not sent? ROM. X. 15. This is, then, the door through which the true shepherds of the flock of Christ enter, that is, when they are legitimately ordained and sent or commissioned by the main shepherds of the Church. Those who assume that office, without entering through the door, are declared by Christ himself "thieves and robbers", John X. 1. From all of which it is manifested, that as true pastors they are an essential part of the Church of Christ, and never they will lack, therefore, there will be in the Church a continuous and uninterrupted succession of priestly powers, and a mission given at the beginning by Jesus Christ himself to his apostles, until the end of time.” 4) Are sedevacant priests and bishops and the SSPX "thieves and robbers" because they have not been sent by the hierarchy? But weren't Thuc and Lefebvre part of that hierarchy that tried to save (with defects and errors) such a mission of the Church? 5) I know that John Lane spoke that not the entire hierarchy could become extinct and the Church defines that there will be successors. Are the cardinals and the hierarchy that we visibly see today in Rome, etc., apostates and heretics? Or is there any of them that can have a succession and jurisdiction? Or must they just be lost? Is it correct to say that the entire modernist hierarchy is apostate or is it an incorrect term to use? 6) In your quote from "Extraordinary and Ordinary Mission (St. Francis de Sales) you mentioned that "It should be noted that St. Francis was explaining the Catholic teaching on an extraordinary mission and applying it to Protestant heretics who claimed such a mission. The teaching, however, is perennial, and anyone claiming such an extraordinary mission must prove that God has given him that mission through miracles, otherwise Catholics must reject such a man and his false claims. Are the sedevacantist bishops and priests and the SSPX an extraordinary mission outside the Church or a new church or is it wrong to consider them that way? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to ask for another advice Before a spiritual discernment to know which vocation to choose: 7) I know that there are no sedevacantist monks (Benedictines, Cartouches, Camaldolese, etc.) Does the FSSPX have monks? Could one enter a monastery of monks of the SSPX having a theological error in fact? In case of priestly vocation, which seminary would be better to enter CMRI, FSSPX or another? 8) in the choice of spouse, fsspx or sedevacantist? Is it necessary to talk about this with a spouse who perhaps was formed in the "anti una cum" or sectarian vision knows all this or should not be decisive? 9) Does anyone have John S Daly's book on state election?
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Feb 15, 2023 11:15:38 GMT -5
Hi Tommy, Welcome to the forum! I think that you will find that without a Shepherd on earth to guide the faithful that the sheep are scattered and have diverse opinions about how to react to the varying crises in the Church during this day and age. Until the day when the papacy is restored it is important to remember that no one has the full power and authority to make a final judgement of the crisis we are going through. That being said, I will try and give some basic answers to your questions as best I understand. May anyone who knows better please correct me and give you better advice. 1) Yes, you can pray the rosary with the SSPX and also in fact novus ordo Catholics as they have never been actually condemned by the True Church. That being said, you can definitely be silent when they pray something you don't agree with. Until the Church judges it officially, we can make the decision to refrain for ourselves but we can not force it upon others. 2) During COVID my husband and I temporarily hosted an SSPX Mission because our normal chapel was temporarily closed. The SSPX priest who held the mission knew our opinions about sedevacantism but as long as we didn't make a big deal about it he didn't seem bothered. I would think that as long as you don't create tension, most people probably won't care that you hold the sede position. 3) Archbishop Lefebvre from what I understand believed that the reformed canon Law was a different subject from John XXIII's reforms. One was openly heretical, the other imperfect but within the limit of what a true Pope could do. Many clergy were confused during the 60's-80's and he was trying to do the best he could with what he knew about the situation. 4) Many people argue about the differences of the New vs. Old Holy Weeks. I prefer the Old one myself but technically the new one does not have anything heretical of which I am aware. So, you could attend whichever was in your area. 5). In the case of your nephew's baptism as long as you used the proper simple form and matter, I would not press the matter to have the rest of the Rite completed. If the parents wish to do so at a later time they may but it is definitely not required if there is no priest within a reasonable distance. 6). Teach the child to know his traditional Catholic catechism. That was the beginning for my becoming a traditional Catholic even though my family was novus ordo. Certain things could only be answered by the traditional Catholic Faith. ...There is no need for you to have to argue with the sedevacantist people in your area. That is the job for priests and clergy and the true hierarchy of the church. You can always answer that you just don't know what to say or don't agree but don't want to argue. Lay people are not obligated to be theologians but we are obliged to live the Faith. I personally believe that charity and humility are the key to being a good traditional Catholic in this day and age. 7) I wouldn't try and argue with the anti-una-cum bishop. You don't have to justify your actions to him nor convince him. Instead pray for him, be thankful for what good things you have learned from him and leave everything else in God's Hands. 8) Yes, that might be best. Silence is golden but always be truthful if someone asks you a question. Just give them a simple answer but don't press the matter. 9) If you wish you can share that your opinions have changed but I don't think you are obligated to as neither side has officially been decided on by the Church. 10) I wish I knew who to direct you to. In general I would recommend the CMRI to you but I don't agree with them on everything. You would have loved my former confessor Father Joseph Collins but he sadly passed away a few years ago. 11) There are varying opinions about the papacy of John XXIII. The final decision of his case can only be decided by a future true Pope. The biggest thing is to avoid anything that seems "not traditionally Catholic" until the day that we have a good pope. 12). You can say, "I believe that Pius XII was the last pope." Or "I am not absolutely sure." 13) If you go to the SSPX and they ask you questions. Just be truthful but don't push out information you don't need to give. In general most SSPX priests will let you attend their chapels even if you are a sedevacantist as long as you don't cause drama. 14) Yes, you absolutely could try and convince any legitimately and validly ordained old priest to confess you in you can find one who is willing. We almost had such a priest marry me and my husband. He agreed to it but then his bishop overruled it. So, then my out of town confessor traveled many hours instead to officiate our wedding. 😅 15) It is not necessary to know what period of the Church we are in, but it is necessary to keep the Faith. That being said... I personally believe that there will be a restoration of the Catholic Church. How else would our Lady of Fatima's words ring true that "In the end her Immaculate Heart would triumph". I also believe that the conversion of the Jews has not happened yet and that is supposed to happen before the official end times and the Antichrist. As Our Lord rose from the tomb so I believe also will the Church in a similar sense. 16) I think the idea is that "non una cum" people make a decision themselves that only a Pope can validly make. This putting themselves above the papacy is similar is some ways to protestantism even if well-intentioned. 17) I am not familiar with the difference between "Bellarmine" and "Guerardarian" sedevacantists so I can not help you there. Maybe it is the difference of totalism sedevacantism vs the thesis? Please don't apologize for asking questions. We are all here for you and happy to see you seeking the truth. That being said... I wouldn't try and push traditional Catholicism on people who aren't ready for it. This tends to push them further away in my experience. Yet, if someone comes to you seeming interested and asks you questions then you can tell them what you know. I understand that it is hard to be in a country where there aren't a lot of Mass options or traditional Catholics. When King Kigeli of Rwanda died there was a man at his funeral who said that he was literally the only traditional Catholic left in his country. We are all secluded from one another. Even those who attend our slightly larger chapel here on the East Coast of the U.S. often travel an hour or two regularly to attend Mass on Sundays. Keep fighting the good fight and may God bless you! Thank you for your words Rita, God bless you! Is there an article by Father Joseph Collins on all these topics, including una cum? I would love to read about him, how did he consider himself in his priest rank? Those who knew him would like to know his testimony. I know 2 CMRI priests who have a very correct vision of one cum and all that, but they are somewhat older, one is very busy, the other has some illnesses that do not allow them to have much patience, and I am a person who has always had concerns. On this, I never had an answer that filled me 100% until I read Lane-Daly's articles.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 15, 2023 11:31:02 GMT -5
Resolution wrote:
Hello Resolution. I think it's important to take into account that the thinking among the various bishops, priests and groups, by all appearances seems to be evolving, so what was once true, or at least not known about their thinking, may not be true today.
Resolution wrote:
I agree, this is a big problem, and it makes no sense. I think it can be further added to this that those who promote this idea reject the Holy Saturday fasting law of Pius XII which restored the Lenten Fast until Easter Sunday, while these folks believe, based on the rejection of Pius XII's law, that the fast ends at noon on Holy Saturday.
Can the Church become corrupt in Her liturgy? The answer for certain is no. I will say that not all of these priests think this, so it important to make distinctions. I knew of one who preferred the older rite, but never attacked the rite of Pius XII, so it's not as all of these people have the same reasoning and motivations.
Resolution wrote:
The binding of consciences, comes from jurisdiction, and the source of that authority is ultimately Our Lord, who gave this authority to His Apostles, who passed it to their successors. No one can bind a conscience who lacks such authority. One can present arguments, to support a position, but no one has to agree on the presentation.
This is becoming a bigger problem, as the bishops and priests doing this are saying they are not successors of the apostles, and by that not claiming jurisdiction over Catholics, yet, in practice, that's exactly what they doing.
Resolution wrote:
In fairness to the bishops in question, I have yet to see any, alive today, claim to be apostolic successors, with the exception of one recently. But, with that said, there are other modern heresies against the apostolic succession which seem to be gaining adherents:
1. one which denies that the Church must have apostolic successors alive in the world, therefore, the apostolic succession may be interrupted.
2. Another that believes that the vacant offices continue the apostolic succession.
3. Another which asserts that non-apostolic successors may be material successors, due to their claim of an office, and even though they are certainly not successors of the Apostles, which is even admitted by proponents of this theory, that they continue state that these "material bishops" continue the apostolic succession.
4. Another which holds that the definition of a successor of the Apostles has changed, and that jurisdiction is no longer essential to one being a successor of the Apostles.
To get to your specific question, there seems to me to be a mixture of the underlying belief systems that are leading to some adopting these new heresies and errors. It's clear that the people involved want to be Catholic, but they are not using Catholic principles in forming their thinking on what seems to be insolvable difficulties that we are witnessing. Those that can't figure these things out, should just say so, and leave it alone, as there is never an excuse to depart from the teaching of the Church to solve the complexities of the crisis. Our duty is to keep the Faith, it's not to solve the mystery of this crisis.
The Protestants specifically taught that an extraordinary mission was possible and claimed it for themselves, that one did not have to be sent and by that have a mission in the Church, and this heresy was directly confronted by Catholics, and very notably St. Francis de Sales.
Another system that I am seeing here is modernism, which believes that dogmas may evolve with the times, and ironically enough, this seems to be the thinking that some are using, when they deny that the former Catholic teaching is true, as it no longer fits with the current times and the current crisis, so they "rework" the doctrines of the Faith to make them fit with their theory on the crisis. Those that are doing this have their thought process backward, the Faith always comes first, and how the current facts are applied to the theology in any given situation, can never mean that the Faith must be changed to fit those facts. The Faith must be untouched, and if one wants to solve the mystery, he must do so while not touching the Faith, and see how the facts fit. The method they are using is like someone frustrated with a very large puzzle, so he starts hammering pieces in to make them fit! The puzzle gets finished, but is a mangled mess, not the picture that it is meant to be.
Resolution wrote:
This is generally good advice, but it must be taken on a case by case basis. I am personally aware of marriages being disturbed by one spouse being infected with the NUC thinking and the other not, for example. It doesn't take much to see that this will bring stress to marriages. The same goes for young people, they are being divided over this matter, and it will make things harder to find a spouse, as this will be a major issue in choosing a spouse, for both parties. This issue is dividing Catholics, there is no doubt about it in my mind.
If one chooses to go to a NUC priest, or one who has adopted other unorthodox ideas, as discussed above, even if you are personally well versed in your Faith, be careful who you may bring with you, as their presence there exposes them to danger of infection, if they do not know their Faith well enough.
Fr. Cekada once said, "geography determines theology," and in many respects he was right, even though he was saying this for the wrong reasons, as one only has to look at where people choose to attend mass in their area, whether it's St. Gertrude's in Ohio, Brooksville in Florida, and other places such as that, and see that the people who go to mass at these places for the most part adopt the ideas of the priest on many of these topics, taught by these men, but not taught to them by the Catholic Church. So, one must be careful as these bishops and priests are in many cases no longer just offering mass, and stating certain truths of the Faith, they are going beyond that and are preaching and teaching ideas about the crisis, many times unorthodox, as though they are settled truths that must be believed, and many unsuspecting Catholics, not well educated on these matters, are uncritically believing them, and by that being harmed spiritually.
|
|