Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 13:36:33 GMT -5
You have no Idea...Im up to my neck on fb with sede who came right out and said he prefers sede as a descriptor instead of Catholic! Sounds Protestant to me. What on earth is happening??? I always knew the Novus Ordo was Protestant - and it seems some of the "Trads" have or are going Protestant. Combatting the Novus Ordo Protestants with Trad Protestantism doesn't seem to be the way to go, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 1, 2017 15:48:25 GMT -5
You have no Idea...Im up to my neck on fb with sede who came right out and said he prefers sede as a descriptor instead of Catholic! Sounds Protestant to me. What on earth is happening??? I always knew the Novus Ordo was Protestant - and it seems some of the "Trads" have or are going Protestant. Combatting the Novus Ordo Protestants with Trad Protestantism doesn't seem to be the way to go, in my opinion. Your exactly right.
|
|
|
Post by carloscamejo on Jun 1, 2017 21:22:12 GMT -5
You have no Idea...Im up to my neck on fb with sede who came right out and said he prefers sede as a descriptor instead of Catholic! Well, if God in His infinite Goodness gives us a good/true pope soon, what happens of this guy on facebook? Where would he go when his descriptor would no longer be needed?
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jun 1, 2017 21:48:27 GMT -5
You have no Idea...Im up to my neck on fb with sede who came right out and said he prefers sede as a descriptor instead of Catholic! Well, if God in His infinite Goodness gives us a good/true pope soon, what happens of this guy on facebook? Where would he go when his descriptor would no longer be needed? I've never been one to say the popular thing but the current trajectory is likely to continue to crumble as it grows. Many sedevacantists will not end up accepting a pope when we get one. I don't say that like I am sure that I will be among those who do, but the more we act and judge outside the authority of the Church, the more danger we are in. We collectively have become too accustomed to outright, thoughtless rejection, nitpicking, departing from the law, and withholding of obedience. That doesn't make for a good situation should we suddenly get a pope.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 1, 2017 23:18:56 GMT -5
There is a civil war coming amongst the sede trad camps.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 1:25:48 GMT -5
I recently had a sede on a blog go ballistic regarding those who go to the Ukranian Church. It was over the una cum. The sede stated it was a "sin" to go to the Ukranians because of the una cum. That the Ukranians were totally off limits. I got the guy really mad at me when I asked him by what and whose authority is it a "sin" - a bunch of Priests and Bishops whose ordinations are questionable? (It is ok for the sedes to bash the Ukranians, but you can't question or say anything about the sedes in rebuttal without their going totally off the wall).
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 3, 2017 10:15:48 GMT -5
I recently had a sede on a blog go ballistic regarding those who go to the Ukranian Church. It was over the una cum. The sede stated it was a "sin" to go to the Ukranians because of the una cum. That the Ukranians were totally off limits. I got the guy really mad at me when I asked him by what and whose authority is it a "sin" - a bunch of Priests and Bishops whose ordinations are questionable? (It is ok for the sedes to bash the Ukranians, but you can't question or say anything about the sedes in rebuttal without their going totally off the wall). It's good to realize that this novelty once never existed. In the early days of resistance against Paul VI and his Novus Ordo, Catholics retreated in all directions, some finding shelter with their own diocesan priests or a religious order priest who wouldn't go along with the new bastardized rite, others went to the eastern rites, whichever one they could find. None, however had a problem with the Una Cum. From my reading and tracing the river back to it's source, this theological position developed in Europe by Fr. (later Bishop) Guerard des Lauriers, and then infected others in Europe and eventually it travelled to America and the West, with Bps. Sanborn and Dolan and Fr. Cekada and their subordinates openly teaching it, and by that infecting countless Catholics of the sedevacantist position in the English speaking world. It is worth noting that some who hold this position are more moderate, they see it as something they do for themselves, to protect themselves from potential scandal, but do not attempt to bind others to this view or pretend that others are sinning by going to the SSPX, eastern rites, validly ordained diocesan priests, etc. While I find it unfortunate that such people are willfully refusing to receive sacraments that they are legitimately entitled to recieve, their position is still Catholic, as they are not breaking communion with other Catholics. I think their view is in most cases built on imprudence as they are in many cases needlessly giving up God's gift of the graces of the mass and Holy Communion, but I would not call it schismatic. This position is akin to a sort of quasi-home alonism, which includes Catholics who will only go to the lawfully sent and commissioned priests, while the non una-cum people will only go the few priests out there, (maybe a 100 or so for the entire world) who do not include the name of the undeclared heretic. Both groups play with their souls in refusing masses that they have a right to go to, and which are almost always objectively safe places to go to. The other group, and it appears to me the much bigger group, believes that such masses (SSPX, eastern rite, etc.), are objectively schismatic and it is a mortal sin to go there. There are known cases in which priests who push this view have refused Holy Communion to Catholics who disagree and receive the sacraments by the una-cum priests. This group has a schismatic mentality, at least among the priests, as they sever communion with other Catholics, by imposing a private opinion as a binding judgment, with a consequence, the denial of Holy Communion. They presume a power of the hierarchy to bind Catholics while at the same time they have absolutely no power to bind in any matter, especially a disputed matter not resolved by the Holy See. The laypeople who support such actions are also holding a schismatic mentality for supporting schism.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 3, 2017 10:42:13 GMT -5
Didnt you mention once that John Daly refuted Cekada on una cum? Im curiuous also...following the logic that by being at una cum masses you become one with heretics...wouldnt that then make you also a heretic if you are a US citizen since after all the entire govt is based and established by public heretics and freemasons...and further many of the founding documents and the constitution itself has condemned heresy innregard to church and state and religious liberty?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 3, 2017 11:32:27 GMT -5
Didnt you mention once that John Daly refuted Cekada on una cum? Im curiuous also...following the logic that by being at una cum masses you become one with heretics...wouldnt that then make you also a heretic if you are a US citizen since after all the entire govt is based and established by public heretics and freemasons...and further many of the founding documents and the constitution itself has condemned heresy innregard to church and state and religious liberty? I see your point, but I am not sure the analogy would stick. Being a citizen does not necessarily make one complicit with the evil that goes on within that government. There can be no doubt that the Romans did very evil and vile things, but St. Paul never severed his citizenship. In this case, if Francis was competing against a true and certain Pope, then using his name in the mass would be a schismatic act. There would be no doubt that these characters would be right if Francis were a declared heretic, or if we had a certainly legitimate Pope, and Francis' name was still used. The crux of this matter is that Francis has not yet been authoritatively judged, and we have no certain Pope, so the masses said in union with him by Catholic priests must be permissible. I don't think John Daly wrote on this, but I do know his mind, and I know he knows it's an error. John Lane wrote an excellent tract on this, I posted it somewhere on this forum, and I will be moving it to the new subforum. I will post more resources on the subforum as well.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 17:54:48 GMT -5
I recently had a sede on a blog go ballistic regarding those who go to the Ukranian Church. It was over the una cum. The sede stated it was a "sin" to go to the Ukranians because of the una cum. That the Ukranians were totally off limits. I got the guy really mad at me when I asked him by what and whose authority is it a "sin" - a bunch of Priests and Bishops whose ordinations are questionable? (It is ok for the sedes to bash the Ukranians, but you can't question or say anything about the sedes in rebuttal without their going totally off the wall). It's good to realize that this novelty once never existed. In the early days of resistance against Paul VI and his Novus Ordo, Catholics retreated in all directions, some finding shelter with their own diocesan priests or a religious order priest who wouldn't go along with the new bastardized rite, others went to the eastern rites, whichever one they could find. None, however had a problem with the Una Cum. From my reading and tracing the river back to it's source, this theological position developed in Europe by Fr. (later Bishop) Guerard des Lauriers, and then infected others in Europe and eventually it travelled to America and the West, with Bps. Sanborn and Dolan and Fr. Cekada and their subordinates openly teaching it, and by that infecting countless Catholics of the sedevacantist position in the English speaking world. It is worth noting that some who hold this position are more moderate, they see it as something they do for themselves, to protect themselves from potential scandal, but do not attempt to bind others to this view or pretend that others are sinning by going to the SSPX, eastern rites, validly ordained diocesan priests, etc. While I find it unfortunate that such people are willfully refusing to receive sacraments that they are legitimately entitled to recieve, their position is still Catholic, as they are not breaking communion with other Catholics. I think their view is in most cases built on imprudence as they are in many cases needlessly giving up God's gift of the graces of the mass and Holy Communion, but I would not call it schismatic. This position is akin to a sort of quasi-home alonism, which includes Catholics who will only go to the lawfully sent and commissioned priests, while the non una-cum people will only go the few priests out there, (maybe a 100 or so for the entire world) who do not include the name of the undeclared heretic. Both groups play with their souls in refusing masses that they have a right to go to, and which are almost always objectively safe places to go to. The other group, and it appears to me the much bigger group, believes that such masses (SSPX, eastern rite, etc.), are objectively schismatic and it is a mortal sin to go there. There are known cases in which priests who push this view have refused Holy Communion to Catholics who disagree and receive the sacraments by the una-cum priests. This group has a schismatic mentality, at least among the priests, as they sever communion with other Catholics, by imposing a private opinion as a binding judgment, with a consequence, the denial of Holy Communion. They presume a power of the hierarchy to bind Catholics while at the same time they have absolutely no power to bind in any matter, especillay one a disputed matter not resolved by the Holy See. The laypeople who support such actions are also holding a schismatic mentality for supporting schism. Pacelli - In reference to your last paragraph above, you state "This group has a schismatic mentality". In my opinion they are not only schismatic but have cult like tendacies, if not an outright cult. They evidentially think they are special and are acting on excluding others who do not belong to their so called group or way of thinking on the una cum. I was told by a Trad Chapel in my area that I could not receive Holy Communion because I was attending a Latin Mass that was una cum even though the Priest was pre-Vatican II. (Isn't this cult like behavior)?? At the time I was upset that I was rejected, but I realize now that they did me a big favor.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 3, 2017 19:50:22 GMT -5
It's good to realize that this novelty once never existed. In the early days of resistance against Paul VI and his Novus Ordo, Catholics retreated in all directions, some finding shelter with their own diocesan priests or a religious order priest who wouldn't go along with the new bastardized rite, others went to the eastern rites, whichever one they could find. None, however had a problem with the Una Cum. From my reading and tracing the river back to it's source, this theological position developed in Europe by Fr. (later Bishop) Guerard des Lauriers, and then infected others in Europe and eventually it travelled to America and the West, with Bps. Sanborn and Dolan and Fr. Cekada and their subordinates openly teaching it, and by that infecting countless Catholics of the sedevacantist position in the English speaking world. It is worth noting that some who hold this position are more moderate, they see it as something they do for themselves, to protect themselves from potential scandal, but do not attempt to bind others to this view or pretend that others are sinning by going to the SSPX, eastern rites, validly ordained diocesan priests, etc. While I find it unfortunate that such people are willfully refusing to receive sacraments that they are legitimately entitled to recieve, their position is still Catholic, as they are not breaking communion with other Catholics. I think their view is in most cases built on imprudence as they are in many cases needlessly giving up God's gift of the graces of the mass and Holy Communion, but I would not call it schismatic. This position is akin to a sort of quasi-home alonism, which includes Catholics who will only go to the lawfully sent and commissioned priests, while the non una-cum people will only go the few priests out there, (maybe a 100 or so for the entire world) who do not include the name of the undeclared heretic. Both groups play with their souls in refusing masses that they have a right to go to, and which are almost always objectively safe places to go to. The other group, and it appears to me the much bigger group, believes that such masses (SSPX, eastern rite, etc.), are objectively schismatic and it is a mortal sin to go there. There are known cases in which priests who push this view have refused Holy Communion to Catholics who disagree and receive the sacraments by the una-cum priests. This group has a schismatic mentality, at least among the priests, as they sever communion with other Catholics, by imposing a private opinion as a binding judgment, with a consequence, the denial of Holy Communion. They presume a power of the hierarchy to bind Catholics while at the same time they have absolutely no power to bind in any matter, especillay one a disputed matter not resolved by the Holy See. The laypeople who support such actions are also holding a schismatic mentality for supporting schism. Pacelli - In reference to your last paragraph above, you state "This group has a schismatic mentality". In my opinion they are not only schismatic but have cult like tendacies, if not an outright cult. They evidentially think they are special and are acting on excluding others who do not belong to their so called group or way of thinking on the una cum. I was told by a Trad Chapel in my area that I could not receive Holy Communion because I was attending a Latin Mass that was una cum even though the Priest was pre-Vatican II. (Isn't this cult like behavior)?? At the time I was upset that I was rejected, but I realize now that they did me a big favor. There is no doubt that some of these places have a cult-like mentality. I have witnessed it with my own eyes, and have heard countless stories by others. Be careful where you go these days, some places are still good, others questionable, others I would avoid like the plague. This is even more so for those with children or if you are bringing others whose Faith may not be able to handle it. It's good that you called ahead, I highly recommend doing that. Put the hard questions to them over the phone. Their answers will help you get a read on them. I can tell you first hand that some of the independent priests are excellent and overall the CMRI is good. Even in good places, still never "fall asleep," stay alert as even good situations can go south over time. Sometimes a priest gets sick, dies, etc. and a new priest comes, sometimes solid groups get weird, etc. Traditionalism whether Sede or non-Sede is ungoverned by the hierarchy, it's run by bishops and priests with no standing or any legitimate supervision. The only principe that maintains order and good conduct is the bishop and priests own self-discipline, their recognition that they have no authority, and that their entire role during this criis is very limited.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 3, 2017 21:45:55 GMT -5
Pacelli this is my point alltogether...if you dont have to sever ties with a freemasonic and heretic secular government why couldnt you go to an una cum?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 23:20:24 GMT -5
When Trad groups are trying to make their own rules and binding individuals regarding their belief on the Una Cum, I don't know how they can be considered Catholic. Where is the unity among these Trad groups? It seems to me each group is more divisive than the next and pitting one group against the next is not unity but divisiveness. It seems that the divisiveness among the groups just gets worse over time. If these groups were really concerned with trying to end this crisis, it seems to me they would all unite in their fight against the Novus Ordo and not against each other.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 3, 2017 23:24:03 GMT -5
I think we simply need to unite in prayer and long suffering. There is no fighting this as a group. God is the one who will fix this...I think alot of the problem is this proud attitude these groups have thinking they wil fix this.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 23:29:08 GMT -5
I think we simply need to unite in prayer and long suffering. There is no fighting this as a group. God is the one who will fix this...I think alot of the problem is this proud attitude these groups have thinking they wil fix this. Exactly. It has been 50 yrs since Vatican II and no group has fixed the problem yet. It seems to me it only gets worse! The problems seem to get compounded with each group making up their own rules. As a result they are adding to the confusion and becoming part of the problem instead of the solution.
|
|