St. Vincent Ferrer, the "Una Cum" & Pernicious Lies
Mar 22, 2023 10:40:56 GMT -5
Clotilde, Caillin, and 1 more like this
Post by Pacelli on Mar 22, 2023 10:40:56 GMT -5
As most readers know, St. Vincent Ferrer incorrectly believed in the claim to the Papacy of Pedro de Luna whom has gone down in history as Antipope Benedict XIII.
St. Vincent "was one of the most resolute and faithful adherents of Benedict XIII, and by his word, sanctity, and miracles he did much to strengthen Benedict's position." (CE, 1913)
As the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia states, St. Vincent "felt that he was the messenger of penance sent to prepare men for the judgment. For twenty years he traversed Western Europe preaching penance and awakening the dormant consciences of sinners by his wondrous eloquence. His austere life was but the living expression of his doctrine. The floor was his usual bed; perpetually fasting, he arose at two in the morning to chant the Office, celebrating Mass daily, afterwards preaching, sometimes three hours, and frequently working miracles. After his midday meal he would tend the sick children; at eight o'clock he prepared his sermon for the following day. He usually travelled on foot, poorly clad." SOURCE
St. Vincent lived a beautiful Catholic life of great fruit, and was a miracle worker. He was clearly holy and blessed by God. How does this factor into the una-cum discussion?
1. St Vincent held to the the belief of the Pontificate of Antipope Benedict XIII for over two decades, since Benedict's election in 1394 until 1416 when he broke from him.
2. All of these years it is obvious that his masses would have named the antipope, as he believed in his claim.
3. St. Vincent travelled through Europe under the commission given to him by Benedict XIII, and there is absolutely no record of anyone warning Catholics who accepted the papal claim of the legitimate, although at the time disputed pope in Rome, Urban VI, to avoid masses said by St. Vincent as he named Benedict in the canon and not only believed his claim, but openly supported him.
4. All clearly understood that this was a dispute among Catholics, and although it was a grave matter, it did not actually create a true schism. No one wanted to sever themselves from the Church. Not a single person at the time, including any bishop or theologian, seemed to notice the "una cum" problem.
5. In the "Grain of Incense," Fr. Cekada states that if one goes to a mass in which the false claimant is named, then one is guilty of a "pernicious lie." Yet, throughout Church history when there were fierce debates over claims to the papacy, such as this one with Benedict XIII and Urban VI, and in a time with great theologians writing on the Faith, no one seems to have noticed this supposed problem, which according to Fr. Cekada's tract is grounds for a mortal sin.
This is from "The Grain of Incense":
6. Why weren't Catholics being warned all over Europe to avoid the masses of St Vincent and other priests under the obedience of Benedict XIII? Why, in all of the history of the Church, during the ages of antipopes, despite heated disputes, is there not a single writing of any bishop, priest, theologian, or even the lawful Pope himself, that Catholics, who accepted the claim of the lawful Pope, who attend the masses of the undeclared antipope, are witnessing to a pernicious lie and therefore must not attend.
7. Even after the fact, theologians and canonists looking at these incidents in Church history, also never seemed to notice that Catholics during these disputes may have been guilty of a "pernicious lie," if the Catholic accepted the claim of the lawful Pope and went to masses of priests who accepted the claim of the undeclared antipope. Why, after so many such incidents in Church history do the moralists not warn Catholics that in times of an undeclared antipope, if they are convinced of the false claim of the man to the papacy, that they must refrain from going to mass to priests who name him in the mass, as if they do assist at such masses, they are witnessing publicly to lie, and as it is a lie on a sacred matter, it is a pernicious lie.
8. Since all theologians missed this alleged sin being known that existed throughout Church history, even going back to the early Church days, with all of the different antipope disputes, Catholics needed to wait until 2002 for Fr. Cekada, in his unapproved tract, who finally spotted this "grievous sin," and notice what everyone else in Church history failed to see or warn Catholics about despite countless historical incidents where his supposed moral teaching would have been applicable.
9. When a man discovers some new truth, missed by all before him, especially every theologian in Church history, despite countless incidents where this teaching would, if true, have been applicable, and his new truth has not been investigated by the Church and approved by the hierarchy for publication, that should be a huge red flag for anyone to be very careful of anything he says.
10. For some reason, Fr. Cekada never put two and two together, like he should have, and apparently failed to realize that the Popes, bishops and theologians in Church history didn't miss anything at all, especially a pernicious lie being potentially committed by Catholics all over the world! The Popes, bishops and the moralists did not fail to warn Catholics of this supposed mortal sin that they should have been aware of and combatting. The reason: there was no sin, it's a made up novelty. It was he that was misunderstanding this, and not grasping that there is a chasm between settled matters of the Church and unsettled matters of the Church, and you cannot conflate the two.
11. I leave off with this: the old Bishop Sanborn, a long time ago, before he became a hardened NUC, writing in 1994 did not miss this connection with St. Vincent Ferrer and it's application to our crisis:
St. Vincent "was one of the most resolute and faithful adherents of Benedict XIII, and by his word, sanctity, and miracles he did much to strengthen Benedict's position." (CE, 1913)
As the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia states, St. Vincent "felt that he was the messenger of penance sent to prepare men for the judgment. For twenty years he traversed Western Europe preaching penance and awakening the dormant consciences of sinners by his wondrous eloquence. His austere life was but the living expression of his doctrine. The floor was his usual bed; perpetually fasting, he arose at two in the morning to chant the Office, celebrating Mass daily, afterwards preaching, sometimes three hours, and frequently working miracles. After his midday meal he would tend the sick children; at eight o'clock he prepared his sermon for the following day. He usually travelled on foot, poorly clad." SOURCE
St. Vincent lived a beautiful Catholic life of great fruit, and was a miracle worker. He was clearly holy and blessed by God. How does this factor into the una-cum discussion?
1. St Vincent held to the the belief of the Pontificate of Antipope Benedict XIII for over two decades, since Benedict's election in 1394 until 1416 when he broke from him.
2. All of these years it is obvious that his masses would have named the antipope, as he believed in his claim.
3. St. Vincent travelled through Europe under the commission given to him by Benedict XIII, and there is absolutely no record of anyone warning Catholics who accepted the papal claim of the legitimate, although at the time disputed pope in Rome, Urban VI, to avoid masses said by St. Vincent as he named Benedict in the canon and not only believed his claim, but openly supported him.
4. All clearly understood that this was a dispute among Catholics, and although it was a grave matter, it did not actually create a true schism. No one wanted to sever themselves from the Church. Not a single person at the time, including any bishop or theologian, seemed to notice the "una cum" problem.
5. In the "Grain of Incense," Fr. Cekada states that if one goes to a mass in which the false claimant is named, then one is guilty of a "pernicious lie." Yet, throughout Church history when there were fierce debates over claims to the papacy, such as this one with Benedict XIII and Urban VI, and in a time with great theologians writing on the Faith, no one seems to have noticed this supposed problem, which according to Fr. Cekada's tract is grounds for a mortal sin.
This is from "The Grain of Incense":
A. A Pernicious Lie
It is best to begin with something obvious: the moral virtue of truthfulness, sometimes also called truth or veracity. By this virtue, we exhibit external signs (either words or deeds) that manifest to others what is in our mind.31
Opposed to this, obviously, is the sin of lying. We tend to think of lies only in terms of false statements we knowingly make in words, either in speech or writing. But any external sign, including our deeds or actions, can be a false statement and therefore a lie as well.32
In the case at hand, the sedevacantist believes Ratzinger is not a true pope. Yet when the sedevacantist participates actively in an una cum Mass, by that very fact he affirms the opposite of what is in his mind. In so doing, he lies, because he knows that what he affirms through his actions — his participation — is false.33
To the affirmation in the Canon that the heretic/imposter Ratzinger is “our Pope,” the sedevacantist, through his participation, says beforehand that It is right and just, and afterwards Amen, it is so. He gives utterance, as St. Augustine says, to what his heart knows is not true. And that is a lie — and a lie is always wrong.
And here we have not merely the proverbial “little white lie” about something trivial, but rather a pernicious lie, so called because of the particular harm it causes. The Dominican theologian Merkelbach explains:
“The gravest of all lies is one that harms God in a matter concerning religion.... The pernicious lie is a mortal sin by its very nature due to the evil attached to it, either because of its matter, if it concerns religious doctrine... or because of its end, if it
(The Grain of Incense, p. 8, all emphasis added)
It is best to begin with something obvious: the moral virtue of truthfulness, sometimes also called truth or veracity. By this virtue, we exhibit external signs (either words or deeds) that manifest to others what is in our mind.31
Opposed to this, obviously, is the sin of lying. We tend to think of lies only in terms of false statements we knowingly make in words, either in speech or writing. But any external sign, including our deeds or actions, can be a false statement and therefore a lie as well.32
In the case at hand, the sedevacantist believes Ratzinger is not a true pope. Yet when the sedevacantist participates actively in an una cum Mass, by that very fact he affirms the opposite of what is in his mind. In so doing, he lies, because he knows that what he affirms through his actions — his participation — is false.33
To the affirmation in the Canon that the heretic/imposter Ratzinger is “our Pope,” the sedevacantist, through his participation, says beforehand that It is right and just, and afterwards Amen, it is so. He gives utterance, as St. Augustine says, to what his heart knows is not true. And that is a lie — and a lie is always wrong.
And here we have not merely the proverbial “little white lie” about something trivial, but rather a pernicious lie, so called because of the particular harm it causes. The Dominican theologian Merkelbach explains:
“The gravest of all lies is one that harms God in a matter concerning religion.... The pernicious lie is a mortal sin by its very nature due to the evil attached to it, either because of its matter, if it concerns religious doctrine... or because of its end, if it
(The Grain of Incense, p. 8, all emphasis added)
6. Why weren't Catholics being warned all over Europe to avoid the masses of St Vincent and other priests under the obedience of Benedict XIII? Why, in all of the history of the Church, during the ages of antipopes, despite heated disputes, is there not a single writing of any bishop, priest, theologian, or even the lawful Pope himself, that Catholics, who accepted the claim of the lawful Pope, who attend the masses of the undeclared antipope, are witnessing to a pernicious lie and therefore must not attend.
7. Even after the fact, theologians and canonists looking at these incidents in Church history, also never seemed to notice that Catholics during these disputes may have been guilty of a "pernicious lie," if the Catholic accepted the claim of the lawful Pope and went to masses of priests who accepted the claim of the undeclared antipope. Why, after so many such incidents in Church history do the moralists not warn Catholics that in times of an undeclared antipope, if they are convinced of the false claim of the man to the papacy, that they must refrain from going to mass to priests who name him in the mass, as if they do assist at such masses, they are witnessing publicly to lie, and as it is a lie on a sacred matter, it is a pernicious lie.
8. Since all theologians missed this alleged sin being known that existed throughout Church history, even going back to the early Church days, with all of the different antipope disputes, Catholics needed to wait until 2002 for Fr. Cekada, in his unapproved tract, who finally spotted this "grievous sin," and notice what everyone else in Church history failed to see or warn Catholics about despite countless historical incidents where his supposed moral teaching would have been applicable.
9. When a man discovers some new truth, missed by all before him, especially every theologian in Church history, despite countless incidents where this teaching would, if true, have been applicable, and his new truth has not been investigated by the Church and approved by the hierarchy for publication, that should be a huge red flag for anyone to be very careful of anything he says.
10. For some reason, Fr. Cekada never put two and two together, like he should have, and apparently failed to realize that the Popes, bishops and theologians in Church history didn't miss anything at all, especially a pernicious lie being potentially committed by Catholics all over the world! The Popes, bishops and the moralists did not fail to warn Catholics of this supposed mortal sin that they should have been aware of and combatting. The reason: there was no sin, it's a made up novelty. It was he that was misunderstanding this, and not grasping that there is a chasm between settled matters of the Church and unsettled matters of the Church, and you cannot conflate the two.
11. I leave off with this: the old Bishop Sanborn, a long time ago, before he became a hardened NUC, writing in 1994 did not miss this connection with St. Vincent Ferrer and it's application to our crisis:
11. A saint supported a false pope.
St. Vincent Ferrer supported what has proven to be a false pope in Avignon, France, against the true pope in Rome. At the time, the identity of the true Pope was in doubt. It was easy to make a mistake, and most of the people of both France and Spain supported the wrong one. Fortunately St. Vincent changed his mind and withdrew support from him, but even when he was supporting the wrong one, God graced him with being a veritable wonder-worker wherever he went preaching. I cite this fact not in order to preach a relativism about JP 2 — God forbid — but simply to point out that God does not withhold his graces from people who act in good conscience in confused times, even if they should choose what is objectively wrong. This fact should give everyone a certain reserve about the tone of criticism he hurls against his opponent, since the person you have criticized to death might end up being canonized. While it was correct to have pointed out to St. Vincent his error, and certainly many did, a respect is due to a person’s good will and holiness of life, particularly in the context of the confusion which we daily live. ("Bickering Priests," Sacerdotium, no. 10, 1994, emphasis added)
St. Vincent Ferrer supported what has proven to be a false pope in Avignon, France, against the true pope in Rome. At the time, the identity of the true Pope was in doubt. It was easy to make a mistake, and most of the people of both France and Spain supported the wrong one. Fortunately St. Vincent changed his mind and withdrew support from him, but even when he was supporting the wrong one, God graced him with being a veritable wonder-worker wherever he went preaching. I cite this fact not in order to preach a relativism about JP 2 — God forbid — but simply to point out that God does not withhold his graces from people who act in good conscience in confused times, even if they should choose what is objectively wrong. This fact should give everyone a certain reserve about the tone of criticism he hurls against his opponent, since the person you have criticized to death might end up being canonized. While it was correct to have pointed out to St. Vincent his error, and certainly many did, a respect is due to a person’s good will and holiness of life, particularly in the context of the confusion which we daily live. ("Bickering Priests," Sacerdotium, no. 10, 1994, emphasis added)