|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 19, 2016 22:13:06 GMT -5
The laity arent causing the error. Irrelevent Yes, but some of the laity have been "affected" by these errors, haven't they? No disrespect intended - just asking? I assert that the effects are minimal and well overcome by efficatious Glory that is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 20, 2016 14:26:50 GMT -5
If we had a hierarchy that were correctly using their offices, then yes, they would declare the Conciliar church as sect, and local bishops would command their flocks to avoid it awaiting a universal decision from the Pope who would bind all. The trouble in our situation is that we do not have this, so we are left to work out a myriad of issues relying only on our individual conscience, which binds only ourselves and no other. It is evident that you and I agree that that the Novus Ordo is a rite of a sect, that Catholics are forbidden to go to it, etc. But, the Church has not said this, so no one is obliged by the reason of authority to avoid it. They must be convinced through other reasons, and until they are convinced, they cannot be obliged to avoid it. The same can be said of so many other issues. If someone thinks +Thuc was mentally incapable of consecrating bishops, that is their prerogative. I think they are wrong, but they still have the right to bring the matter to the Holy See for an answer. Until that time, there is no authority that is obliging one to adhere one way or the other. The debate will continue based on the strength of each sides arguments, and if a Catholic chooses to not request scarments from a +Thuc line bishop while awaiting a decision from the Holy See, that is his right. What one cannot do is tell another Catholic, "I bind you to my judgment on this, and by my (non) authority forbid you from receiving Holy Communion, until you agree with me." There weee dozens if not hundreds of diocesan and religious priests in the 70's and 80's that broke with the sect at least to some degree. I have often thought it a worthwhile project to compile a list of all of these priests. Among all of them, not just some of them, I have never, even once come across an allegation that they denied Holy Communion to a layperson who went to their mass. If you like, I can look them up in my notes, and we can go through them one by one. We can start with the late Fr. Fenton, the then Fr. McKenna, and Frs. Carley, Keane, Donahue, Jones, White, etc. I know of some of those priests and their actions in this crisis. Stated simply I believe the SSPV priests are acting in their best judgement, especially concerning the changes in the rites. I think they are not going against their consciences nor being bound by people who don't agree with with them. I will look at the other resources if I haven't read them before. I'm just glad I got the chance to put out there that the SSPV does not forbid going to the SSPX, just as long as the priest isn't ordained in the new rite. I know some people have heard that before. It isn't for us to bind these priests, but these priests are bound by the law, which is the root of the problem for them. It is not for the SSPV to forbid anything, they have no more power in the Church than anyone else. Only the lawful hierarchy can bind its subjects, and no one else can take that power unto themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 20, 2016 15:22:28 GMT -5
Thank you for your post. I don't think it's the laity so much determining. I think it is first brought up by the priests. If the laity doesn't agree with the priest, why don't they just go to the other chapel? The priests may bring the validity question to people's attention, but people must still form their own opinions about it, as long as no ecclesiastical authority is available to settle the matter. The problem is that most aren't able to investigate it for themselves, so their only practical option is to follow someone who seems trustworthy, such as a traditionalist priest or writer. In the end, such people's opinions on validity depend on who they happened to come in contact with, and who they trust. Of course there is no shortage of mistaken priests in the world, not to mention con artists, and it's easy to misplace one's trust. As far as going to the other chapel, or avoiding the chapel where someone disagrees with the priest, I agree that's a possibility. I don't go to any chapel myself, crazy as that may sound, and I'm still trying to sort through the issue. It sounds to me like Pacelli is only asking that priests who celebrate Masses open to the public follow the standing law of the Church as to who may receive Holy Communion. Not an unreasonable request, right? Then all that's left to debate, once we have read the law, is how it might need to be applied differently in today's extraordinary circumstances. I think traditionalist priests could bypass this whole approach by saying that they are not operating public churches at all, but rather are in effect private clubs where an emergency sacramental ministry is carried on. Under that view, nobody has a right to attend, and the priests can make whatever conditions they see fit in order to promote the common good. I think Fr. Cekada might agree with this. I've read that his church has banned people whom it perceives to be undermining its whole operation in a serious way. If some such people have not disqualified themselves from receiving Holy Communion, then it would follow that Fr. Cekada doesn't consider his church to be obliged to accommodate everyone who has a legal right to receive Communion. You are correct that they could get around the law by making the masses private and just allow those "in the club" to attend, but that is not how they are doing it now. Once a Catholic is admitted to mass, he is then protected by law, not the priest's personal judgment on whether he can receive Holy Communion. The reason that I doubt that they will take the road of making it official that they are private clubs, rather than open mass centers, is that it undercuts the entire "traditional bishop/priest model," which justifies their existence by claiming that the Church is in a state of emergency and priests are desperately needed. If they exclude anyone outside of the "club," then what basis do they have in claiming thre were is a widespread emergency? They would be "private club priests, saying mass on private property, for club members only." To some extent, it is already that what way with some of these chapels, but not all the way there yet, or at least they like to give the superficial appearance that this not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 20, 2016 15:28:21 GMT -5
Crazy, isn't it? Fr. Cekada has changed his mind on many things. I don't see an incompatibility here. One could say that it's wrong to attend any una cum Mass without saying that all una cum attendees should be refused Communion at a sedevacantist Mass. I thought this was Fr. Cekada's current position, but I don't know for sure. Sanborn and Dolan are both known for refusing Communion on this ground. I am not sure about Fr. Cekada personally doing this, but he at a minimum remained silent in the face of the abuse of the law by his colleagues, qui tacet consentire videtur.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 20, 2016 15:40:28 GMT -5
Upon doing some reading on the Una Cum, I came across an article written by Bp. Sanborn and he states: "When any act is intrinsically wrong, it is always forbidden. It admits no exceptions. In fact, we would have to accept death before poisting the act. An example is abortion." The whole article can be found at the following link: inveritateblog.com/2014/09/03/can-we-go-to-the-una-cum-mass-in-a-pinch/Am I correct in interpreting that Bp. Sanborn is equating attendance at the Una Cum with an abortion? If so, wouldn't that exclude persons who attend an Una Cum from receiving Communion at his Masses? He also states in the above referenced article not to attend Masses at certain chapels that have the Una Cum as well as Indult. The article also cites Fr. Cekada's article entitled: "Should I Assist at a Mass that names Benedict XVI in the Canon?" Yes, I believe your understanding is correct in seeing that Sanborn is equating an "una cum" mass with the sin of abortion, showing how far gone this bunch is on a matter of theology. Fr. Desposito, who is a "seminary professor" in Sanborn's seminary explained:And
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 20, 2016 16:05:32 GMT -5
Upon doing some reading on the Una Cum, I came across an article written by Bp. Sanborn and he states: "When any act is intrinsically wrong, it is always forbidden. It admits no exceptions. In fact, we would have to accept death before poisting the act. An example is abortion." The whole article can be found at the following link: inveritateblog.com/2014/09/03/can-we-go-to-the-una-cum-mass-in-a-pinch/Am I correct in interpreting that Bp. Sanborn is equating attendance at the Una Cum with an abortion? If so, wouldn't that exclude persons who attend an Una Cum from receiving Communion at his Masses? He also states in the above referenced article not to attend Masses at certain chapels that have the Una Cum as well as Indult. The article also cites Fr. Cekada's article entitled: "Should I Assist at a Mass that names Benedict XVI in the Canon?" Yes, I believe your understanding is correct in seeing that Sanborn is equating an "una cum" mass with the sin of abortion, showing how far gone this bunch is on a matter of theology. Fr. Desposito, who is a "seminary professor in Sanborn's seminary explained:And What kind of madness is this???Are you serious?
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Nov 20, 2016 16:07:55 GMT -5
I don't see an incompatibility here. One could say that it's wrong to attend any una cum Mass without saying that all una cum attendees should be refused Communion at a sedevacantist Mass. I thought this was Fr. Cekada's current position, but I don't know for sure. Sanborn and Dolan are both known for refusing Communion on this ground. I am not sure about Fr. Cekada personally doing this, but he at a minimum remained silent in the face of the abuse of the law by his colleagues, qui tacet consentire videtur. This is my favorite post ever on any forum.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 17:23:32 GMT -5
Upon doing some reading on the Una Cum, I came across an article written by Bp. Sanborn and he states: "When any act is intrinsically wrong, it is always forbidden. It admits no exceptions. In fact, we would have to accept death before poisting the act. An example is abortion." The whole article can be found at the following link: inveritateblog.com/2014/09/03/can-we-go-to-the-una-cum-mass-in-a-pinch/Am I correct in interpreting that Bp. Sanborn is equating attendance at the Una Cum with an abortion? If so, wouldn't that exclude persons who attend an Una Cum from receiving Communion at his Masses? He also states in the above referenced article not to attend Masses at certain chapels that have the Una Cum as well as Indult. The article also cites Fr. Cekada's article entitled: "Should I Assist at a Mass that names Benedict XVI in the Canon?" Yes, I believe your understanding is correct in seeing that Sanborn is equating an "una cum" mass with the sin of abortion, showing how far gone this bunch is on a matter of theology. Fr. Desposito, who is a "seminary professor" in Sanborn's seminary explained:And Pacelli - Thanks for the clarification regarding the equating of the Una Cum with the sin of abortion by Bp. Sanborn. It is mind boggling to say the least that these persons are spewing this and sad that some people are believing it. Note: (What I was trying to convey in my post of 11/19/16 was that if Bp. Sanborn, et al., were equating attendance at an Una Cum Mass with the sin of abortion, that it would then lead to refusal of Holy Communion at their chapels for Una Cum Mass attendees). (Perhaps my being refused Holy Communion at a certain chapel was based on this reasoning? As the reason given that I couldn't receive Communion at the chapel was because I attended an Una Cum Mass.) -- Just saying --
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 13, 2017 18:58:21 GMT -5
No one who refuses sacraments to laity are Catholic. What if said laity is an open sodomite? Sacraments MUST be refused to PUBLIC mortal sinners.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on May 13, 2017 21:18:47 GMT -5
What's even more sad is that poor new converts such as yourself are being roped into thinking its lawful to receive sacraments from those in union with heretics. Even if "naming him pope doesn't make him pope" it does mean that the priest who names the heretic as pope is guilty of being in union with said apostate heretic who claims to be pope. This means you are receiving sacraments from a member of a heretical sect. Terrible news! Highly advised to cease and desist. There are other issues also regarding validity of orders etc... but heretical sect is enough to run for the hills! What do you propose people to do in this terrible crisis in the Church - become "Home Aloners"?? I am not responsible for what a Priest does or what his private beliefs are. I am not a mind reader!! I don't think God is as small minded as what you think he is. Grant you, I am new and have a lot to learn, but common sense goes along way! You are fine. You are taking the time to try to understand everything and in doing so, you will avoid pitfalls and stumbling blocks that many of us have encountered in our conversions, and still do, as we work out our salvation in fear and trembling, as St. Paul says!
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 14, 2017 6:38:28 GMT -5
No one who refuses sacraments to laity are Catholic. What if said laity is an open sodomite? Sacraments MUST be refused to PUBLIC mortal sinners. Good point I shouldve been more specific.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 17:54:11 GMT -5
I keep running across varying heated discussions regarding the una cum issue. I was curious as to what was done regarding the una cum in the Great Western Schism when there were multiple claimants to the Papacy?? Evidently the Masses that were not said with the true Pope's name inserted in the Mass were not considered invalid, or a sin?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 30, 2017 18:25:27 GMT -5
I keep running across varying heated discussions regarding the una cum issue. I was curious as to what was done regarding the una cum in the Great Western Schism when there were multiple claimants to the Papacy?? Evidently the Masses that were not said with the true Pope's name inserted in the Mass were not considered invalid, or a sin. Veronica...the mods and I were discussing a notable uptick at many forums on this issue...this may get very heated soon on the trad forums and Facebook
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 18:35:30 GMT -5
I keep running across varying heated discussions regarding the una cum issue. I was curious as to what was done regarding the una cum in the Great Western Schism when there were multiple claimants to the Papacy?? Evidently the Masses that were not said with the true Pope's name inserted in the Mass were not considered invalid, or a sin. Veronica...the mods and I were discussing a notable prick at many forums on this issue...this may get very heated soon on the trad forums and Facebook What about my question - what happened during the Great Western Schism when there were Masses not said with the true Pope's name inserted in the Mass?? I don't recall Masses being declared as invalid or a sin if the true Pope's name was not inserted into the Mass, but that of an Anti-Pope was inserted in the Mass instead.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on May 30, 2017 18:53:00 GMT -5
I keep running across varying heated discussions regarding the una cum issue. I was curious as to what was done regarding the una cum in the Great Western Schism when there were multiple claimants to the Papacy?? Evidently the Masses that were not said with the true Pope's name inserted in the Mass were not considered invalid, or a sin? Exactly as you surmise. There were no penalties for the mistake of the priest regarding the claimant.
|
|