|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 28, 2024 15:04:57 GMT -5
Today, someone sent this video to me of a recent explanation by Fr. Radecki on the NUC issue.
Some comments on the video:
1. Fr. Radecki of the CMRI correctly explains that Catholics can go to masses of the SSPX when the priest saying mass is validly ordained in the Catholic rite.
2. I do not agree with him that one can say with certainty that the new rite of Paul VI is invalid based on Sacramentum Ordinis of Pius XII. I have a lot of respect for Fr. Radecki as a researcher, and my hope is that he just hasn't dived into this issue deeply enough. Pius XII taught that the specific form as given by him would certainly be valid, but did not say that if that form was not used it would be invalid. The Pope did give the criteria that must be present for the rite to be valid, and it is to that which must looked at to determine if a novel rite is valid or not. The eastern rites do not use the wording as taught by Pius XII, yet they are valid.
It is a dangerous path to judge this rite as invalid based on our own non-authority. There are good arguments that favor validity and good arguments against validity. I think we can safely say that since the rite is not identical to any Catholic rite and as there is a legitimate reason to doubt that the rite fulfills the criteria as taught by Pius XII, then we are on safe ground to form moral certainty prior to the judgment of the Church that the rite cannot be trusted, and we must refrain from the use of orders of these priests until the matter is resolved by Rome.
As we who hold the Sedevacantist position, another reason can be given for the above, which I think is a solid and irrefutable argument: Since we have moral certainty that Paul VI was not Pope, basing this judgment on firm Catholic principles, we believe that the rites approved by him do not come from the Catholic Church, and therefore we have no obligation to receive them. A simple way of saying this is that since the Church did not give us these rites, we don't have to accept them. Furthermore, since the Church did not give these novel rites, the Church did does not guarantee their validity.
3. I am happy that Fr. Radecki has taken a public stand against NUCism which is infecting many Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 29, 2024 11:55:27 GMT -5
The following public response to Fr. Radecki's explanation above on the NUC matter was sent to me and was given by Fr. Stephen McKenna of the Ohio based St. Gertrude the Great group (the late Bp. Dolan's group). This response was made by Fr. McKenna on the Facebook group "Sedevacantist Society," June 28, 2024.
(My comments follow with the quoted text. I will post his complete response without comments at the end.)
Fr. McKenna wrote: Actually, it is this response which misses the point, as it based on ambiguity and incorrect thinking.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
This lacks precision, as we are dealing with an undeclared antipope, to which most of the Catholic world believes to be Pope. This is the foundation point at which Fr. McKenna's error begins.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
In order for this to be a sin, attending the mass of a validly ordained Catholic priest, using the Catholic rite, who has not judged the matter of whether Francis is not a pope, then the accuser must name the sin. What sin is being committed, and what sources support that?
Fr. McKenna wrote:
Let's take these separately. Regarding authority, yes, some believe it is. Those bishops and priests that deny Holy Communion to Catholics are exercising jurisdiction by binding Catholics to believe their opinion on this matter. Regarding the moral judgment made by individual Catholics, their judgment doesn't make them right on this. Catholics judge many things, rightly and wrongly. The "facts" have been skewed by writers who have presented this, and Catholics have, in my opinion, not fact checked the sources presented.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
This is a non-sequitur. All moralists agree that such things named above are sinful. No moralist can be found that specifically supports this opinion. It's made up nonsense.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
With respect to Fr. Radecki, I believe he is wrong on this point, (see my post above), and knowing his reputation for solid and careful research, my guess is that he has not studied this matter in depth, and if he did dedicate himself to studying this validity issue of the 1968 rite of orders, he would see the problem with his thinking.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
The judgment of Francis as a heretic is a non-authoritative private judgment, nothing more. It is a judgment formed by moral certainty as to the facts of the case, and when this judgment is made by an individual Catholic it does not bind anyone else.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
Correct.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
Yes, he has, but that is not a proof that any of these actions are licit in our circumstance.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
Yes, ordinarily that is true, but there are caveats. In the Western Schism, Catholics, in good conscience assisted at the mass of the undeclared antipopes, and did not sin. Clearly, the principle must be understood correctly, and one must not pretend that we are living in ordinary times, in which an undisputed Pope, recognized and accepted by the Church is reigning. During the time of Pope Pius XII, for example, there were others claiming to be pope, and at that time, under those circumstances, it would certainly have been sinful to attend a mass in union with the schismatic claimant.
But, in our case, we are even one step further away from even what I described above. In our case, we have papal claimants, Paul VI to Francis, who are both undeclared heretics and undeclared antipopes. The Church has not settled any of this, and no one can force a judgment on these men as either a heretic or an antipope on a Catholic's conscience except a future pope.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
The key word used here to build his thesis by Fr. McKenna is "known." I say that this term he is using is ambiguous. Does he mean "known" and judged? Does he mean that if this judgment is made by some, that this makes the status of being an anti-pope known? If he does believe this, let him prove it.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
There is no judged person claiming to be an antipope in our times, so this is all wrong.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
The understanding of Francis as an undeclared heretic and an undeclared antipope, does not mean that any Catholic priest who has yet to judge him is a non-Catholic. I contend that distance or lack of availability of masses are irrelevant, and a Catholic is free to attend any mass that is said by a validity ordained Catholic priest using the Catholic rite, and no one can tell him otherwise. One may even attend the mass of an undeclared heretic in some circumstances. If there is a sedevacantist chapel, an SSPX chapel, an independent chapel, or an eastern rite Parish in the same town, and all priests in this scenario are Catholic, validly ordained and using the Catholic rite, then a laymen can choose any of them in accords with prudence at to where he will attend.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
Agreed, and this also goes for those living close to SGG or its affiliates.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
This is a non-sequitur. The missionaries went to bring the Church to unCatholic lands and bring the Faith to them, and by that the sacraments. The priests of today bring the sacraments to starving laypeople out of charity, not a direct commission to do so my the Church. Many of the laypeople in question, are not truly lacking the sacraments, they just think they are as they have adopted incorrect principles, such as NUCism leading to an unnecessary self denial of valid and licit sacraments.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
Isn't the reason obvious? The Catholics in Australia adopted the NUC error, and due to this, rejected valid and licit sacraments based on this. They weren't truly deprived of sacraments, they just incorrectly concluded that they were. Their situation is akin to persons being convinced by charlatans that their food is poisoned, even though it isn't, but based on this incorrect belief refuse to eat. One would feel sorry for these people, as they hold this belief based on being duped, and maybe try to help them by bringing food that they believe is not tainted. Clearly, Fr. Radecki was helping Catholics that have been duped, and were so blinded by their mistake that they could not see their error.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
This is only correct if the opinion that attendance at these masses is correct. Once this opinion is shown to be false, then any advice to avoid these masses is evil advice.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
These original priests also lacked any authority to forbid Catholics from going to mass based on an opinion, but these priests in question did give the correct advice.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
That's interesting to me, as Bp. McKenna was not known as a NUC.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
This cuts both ways. The NUCs are by all appearances trapped by their error, and do not appear open and willing to develop their thinking and do the research, to free themselves from this.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
This is true, but it still doesn't make an undeclared heretic into a declared heretic, or make an unreal red antipope into a judged antipope. Our understanding and research, no matter how thorough, will never give us authority to settle anything with authority.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
In our case, the uncommissioned bishops, along with the uncommissioned priests and laity are all equal as to status. Any training that these bishops and priests have is private training. Some may be better and some worse, but it's all private. The only priests with authorized and approved training were those ordained before the crisis and they are all dead. I do agree that we should think and research, and act in accordance with our well informed conscience, but any conclusions drawn by anyone should always be open to being amended. A basic rule in the spiritual life is to distrust oneself.
Fr. McKenna wrote:
Thats a very good way to end this, and a Catholic spirit of discussing this. Holy orders is not really relevant to this. If one is leading Catholics astray with error, and any Catholic sees that happening and understands the matter well enough to be certain of the error, then in charity any Catholic, priest or not, should make this known, expose the error, while not challenging the good will of the person spreading it, unless bad will is obvious and provable. It is in this same spirit that this correction against Fr. McKenna's public error is being given.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is Fr. McKenna's complete response to Fr. Radecki without comment:
|
|
|
Post by anthonyabhilesh on Jul 6, 2024 11:17:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pjg on Jul 7, 2024 10:17:48 GMT -5
How many priests within the SSPX have come from the N.O. that haven't been conditionally ordained in the old rite? Has anyone kept track?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 7, 2024 16:13:27 GMT -5
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Awsome contributor
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 458
|
Post by John Lewis on Jul 7, 2024 21:43:34 GMT -5
This list labels sedevacantists as being in schism...
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 8, 2024 10:11:23 GMT -5
This list labels sedevacantists as being in schism... I agree, and as stated I do not like their rhetoric. The fact is though, that these are the only people that have actually researched the orders of SSPX priests and a lot of them at that. This is the only place online that you will find answers to this, and they provide this massive list free of charge to anyone. If anyone thinks they may be influenced by the rhetoric from this group, I strongly urge you to not read this list. If anyone can just read the list for the invaluable information these people have accumulated on the orders of the priests of the SSPX and some others, without learning the sectarian ideas of this group, then this list is a great resource that should be used as it cannot be found anywhere else. For that I appreciate the tremendous undertaking to put this list together by them, and my hope is that they will come to their senses and remove these useless and sectarian statements from the list.
|
|