|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 10, 2017 13:32:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 10, 2021 5:48:30 GMT -5
The discussion on the article "Grain of Incense...", (Cekada, Nov. 2007) linked here took place on the Bellarmine Forums in 2007-2008. Through the discussion, the sophistry and appeal to emotion present in the article were exposed. I would urge every Catholic confused about the "Una Cum" matter to read this very enlightening exchange linked HEREis this link active?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 10, 2021 11:48:12 GMT -5
The Bellarmine Forums went down for a while. It's back up now, but the links have changed. It's updated now.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2022 9:18:42 GMT -5
Hey Pacelli, i'm unable to access the link you posted here about the discussion of Father Cekada's Grain of Incense article. The link does not work, nor does the archives on the St Robert Bellarmine website. I was wondering if you had another link which does work because i would really like to see this, as grain of incense is a big one used by the NUCs folks. If you don't have any links would you be able to post the information here if it is saved digitally or in real life in some way, or recall the main criticisms?
Once i have information on this it will be good because i am building a collection of refutations against the NUC position, and sadly this one is a tougher cookie and harder to find any contrary information on. What is convincing about this article at least on face value is the fact that some of it's quotes say that the laity actively consent to every single prayer and thing said by the priest during the mass. I'm very close to full clarity on all these arguments, this is the last straw for the NUC side in my mind it seems.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 19, 2022 15:18:50 GMT -5
Hey Pacelli, i'm unable to access the link you posted here about the discussion of Father Cekada's Grain of Incense article. The link does not work, nor does the archives on the St Robert Bellarmine website. I was wondering if you had another link which does work because i would really like to see this, as grain of incense is a big one used by the NUCs folks. If you don't have any links would you be able to post the information here if it is saved digitally or in real life in some way, or recall the main criticisms? Once i have information on this it will be good because i am building a collection of refutations against the NUC position, and sadly this one is a tougher cookie and harder to find any contrary information on. What is convincing about this article at least on face value is the fact that some of it's quotes say that the laity actively consent to every single prayer and thing said by the priest during the mass. I'm very close to full clarity on all these arguments, this is the last straw for the NUC side in my mind it seems. I found the link. The Bellarmine Forums is down, and has been down for a while, but fortunately the Wayback Machine has the old content. The link is here: web.archive.org/web/20210410230448/http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=594&sid=6eb2384cdeeaa922ed7e16715d47cd2aI will answer the other point in a little while.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 19, 2022 16:37:00 GMT -5
Ferdinando wrote:
Before answering, let me say that I am happy you are fighting this modern error. It is evil and insidious and is dangerous for the remaining Catholics. Let's face it, those who love the truth and have got so close to the truth in this crisis are sedevacantists. We have sorted through the many theories and have made it, at least the intellectual aspect of this crisis, to the finish line, but the Devil, always cunning as he is, has left traps right at the finish line in a last effort to lead the remnant Catholics astray.
This so called NUC position is one of these traps. It is built on error, and it logically leads to schism. In the practical order of things, it directly leads Catholics to not go to the sacraments in many instances and for many Catholics it leads to either a permanent or at least close to permanent loss of sacraments. Since the reception of Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, the unnecessary loss of Holy Communion, at a minimum spiritually deprives Catholics, but it may even cost them their salvation, as they will be in a weakened state to remain good and pure and may more easily fall away into sin and vices.
There are less than 100 sedevacantist priests in the world. If it is higher than that, I would be surprised. Most of these priests live in the U.S. Therefore, many Catholics who believe this rubbish and do not live near one of these priests will no longer receive the sacraments unless he has the money and ability to travel.
Even when Catholics live near these priests, sometimes they still cannot go to them. For example, there are catholics who live near SSPV, but cannot go to them, as they will not submit to their non-authority in commanding them to not go to priests of the Thuc lines.
Further, the NUC position is divisive. I know of families that are suffering from such divisions. Fr. Cekada raised his private opinion to a matter of Faith when he equated attending valid Catholic masses, (validly ordained Catholic priest saying the Catholic rite), as equal to offering incense to false gods. Stephen Heiner's recent article shows where this thinking leads: if sedevacantists don't agree with Fr. Cekada they are painted as weak, as compromisers, and perhaps even idolaters. Stephen Heiner argued that Catholics should not even attend CMRI, the largest sedevacantist group in the world! Considering how extremely divisive Mr. Heiner's article was, you would think if Bishop Sanborn or the priests who work with him, or the priests at Saint Gertrude's disagreed with it, they would go on record and say so. This article should have been condemned by all sedevacantist leaders. All we heard was crickets.
Anyway to your point, do Catholics consent to every point at every mass? You certainly consent by your active participation to all fixed prayers of the Mass. What if the priest in his sermon incorrectly explains a point of doctrine? Must you agree and then believe his erroneous explanation?
So, let's take this a step further: let's say a priest in our current state of sedevacante on his own non-authority rejects a feast approved by the Pope for the universal Church. Let's say you go to mass to this priest and you know full well that he is not obeying and refusing to use the feast for the day and is using an older feast from an outdated but once approved calendar. Is your presence there agreement with his disobedience, or could you say, "I have the right to the sacraments, even though this priest is choosing to disobey the papal law, I will attend Mass, and when the Church reforms, I will report him to the local bishop." In my opinion, you could safely hold the latter opinion. Btw, this is a real life example, not a hypothetical.
There are many examples that could be given. What if the priest believes an unjust war is just, and makes it his mass intention, stated by him in the Mass, then is your presence there consent to his incorrect understanding of of the war, or could you say, "the Church has not settled the matter of morality the war, therefore even though I believe this intention being prayed for in the mass is not good, it's also not a settled matter to which I do not agree with."
I could go on and on with examples to punch holes in this idea of Fr. Cekada, but I'm sure you get the point.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2022 7:11:19 GMT -5
Ferdinando wrote: Before answering, let me say that I am happy you are fighting this modern error. It is evil and insidious and is dangerous for the remaining Catholics. Let's face it, those who love the truth and have got so close to the truth in this crisis are sedevacantists. We have sorted through the many theories and have made it, at least the intellectual aspect of this crisis, to the finish line, but the Devil, always cunning as he is, has left traps right at the finish line in a last effort to lead the remnant Catholics astray. This so called NUC position is one of these traps. It is built on error, and it logically leads to schism. In the practical order of things, it directly leads Catholics to not go to the sacraments in many instances and for many Catholics it leads to either a permanent or at least close to permanent loss of sacraments. Since the reception of Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, the unnecessary loss of Holy Communion, at a minimum spiritually deprives Catholics, but it may even cost them their salvation, as they will be in a weakened state to remain good and pure and may more easily fall away into sin and vices. There are less than 100 sedevacantist priests in the world. If it is higher than that, I would be surprised. Most of these priests live in the U.S. Therefore, many Catholics who believe this rubbish and do not live near one of these priests will no longer receive the sacraments unless he has the money and ability to travel. Even when Catholics live near these priests, sometimes they still cannot go to them. For example, there are catholics who live near SSPV, but cannot go to them, as they will not submit to their non-authority in commanding them to not go to priests of the Thuc lines. Further, the NUC position is divisive. I know of families that are suffering from such divisions. Fr. Cekada raised his private opinion to a matter of Faith when he equated attending valid Catholic masses, (validly ordained Catholic priest saying the Catholic rite), as equal to offering incense to false gods. Stephen Heiner's recent article shows where this thinking leads: if sedevacantists don't agree with Fr. Cekada they are painted as weak, as compromisers, and perhaps even idolaters. Stephen Heiner argued that Catholics should not even attend CMRI, the largest sedevacantist group in the world! Considering how extremely divisive Mr. Heiner's article was, you would think if Bishop Sanborn or the priests who work with him, or the priests at Saint Gertrude's disagreed with it, they would go on record and say so. This article should have been condemned by all sedevacantist leaders. All we heard was crickets. Anyway to your point, do Catholics consent to every point at every mass? You certainly consent by your active participation to all fixed prayers of the Mass. What if the priest in his sermon incorrectly explains a point of doctrine? Must you agree and then believe his erroneous explanation? So, let's take this a step further: let's say a priest in our current state of sedevacante on his own non-authority rejects a feast approved by the Pope for the universal Church. Let's say you go to mass to this priest and you know full well that he is not obeying and refusing to use the feast for the day and is using an older feast from an outdated but once approved calendar. Is your presence there agreement with his disobedience, or could you say, "I have the right to the sacraments, even though this priest is choosing to disobey the papal law, I will attend Mass, and when the Church reforms, I will report him to the local bishop." In my opinion, you could safely hold the latter opinion. Btw, this is a real life example, not a hypothetical. There are many examples that could be given. What if the priest believes an unjust war is just, and makes it his mass intention, stated by him in the Mass, then is your presence there consent to his incorrect understanding of of the war, or could you say, "the Church has not settled the matter of morality the war, therefore even though I believe this intention being prayed for in the mass is not good, it's also not a settled matter to which I do not agree with." I could go on and on with examples to punch holes in this idea of Fr. Cekada, but I'm sure you get the point. Yeah this seems to definitely be one of the tricks of the devil. I bet it is, and he's probably loving it right now. And yeah those examples you said make heaps of sense, it's just so stupid that it has to be this way, i wonder why there hasn't been any debates about this between the clergy, i reckon there should be and it should be all resolved because it's such a destructive belief. I bet you the devil has played into the pride of some of the clergy because pride helps to make someone even more headstrong in their belief and less willing to debate and consider the possibility of a sound discrediting of their belief. I live in South Australia and the mass situation is much more scarce than the USA, there is only one permanent from my knowledge non-una cum priest here who submits to Bishop Sanborn, and he tours most of the main cities here. Those in his mass route have to wait weeks for the sacraments, when they could get receiving our lord even daily if they simply did further research. I hope this get's countered. I would be happy to work together with you and others even to make an anti-NUC manifesto, in a pdf format which matches or goes over grain of incense in size and is concise and easy to read. Grain of incense seems to me to be the main document of the NUC side, and if it could be point by point refuted in a pdf and additionally our case proven with every good argument known and spread easily that would hopefully do wonders for souls. And also thanks heaps for responding to me and sending these links i really do appreciate it. Sincerely, Adam J.M.J.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 20, 2022 17:29:06 GMT -5
Hi Adam,
I am happy for all the work you do in fighting this error. The consequences of this are obvious: Most Catholics will go to mass less or maybe not at all anymore, and if and when that happens, unnecessarily, the Devil wins.
The graces that Catholics receive from the Mass and most especially the reception of Holy Communion cannot be minimized. The fact is that to willfully snd foolishly deny those gifts of graces from God to us for made up faulty theological reasons is extremely harmful to one's soul, and may jeopardize one's salvation.
This is why this forum has encouraged Catholics to find all masses with validly ordained priests near them and of course urging all safeguards of Faith to be in place, but with that said, to be willing to go to any mass where the priest is a Catholic, the Catholic rite is used, and the holy orders of the priest is certainly valid. This includes priests of the SSPX and eastern rites.
The recent statements from CMRI could be a good beginning to any rebuttal of this wicked position.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2022 5:13:18 GMT -5
Hi Adam, I am happy for all the work you do in fighting this error. The consequences of this are obvious: Most Catholics will go to mass less or maybe not at all anymore, and if and when that happens, unnecessarily, the Devil wins. The graces that Catholics receive from the Mass and most especially the reception of Holy Communion cannot be minimized. The fact is that to willfully snd foolishly deny those gifts of graces from God to us for made up faulty theological reasons is extremely harmful to one's soul, and may jeopardize one's salvation. This is why this forum has encouraged Catholics to find all masses with validly ordained priests near them and of course urging all safeguards of Faith to be in place, but with that said, to be willing to go to any mass where the priest is a Catholic, the Catholic rite is used, and the holy orders of the priest is certainly valid. This includes priests of the SSPX and eastern rites. The recent statements from CMRI could Be a good beginning to any rebuttal of this wicked position. Yeah fantastic, this forum is honestly a great idea. On a side note, i also found a link to a whole bunch of new Non-Una Cum refutation sources on St Robert Bellarmine Forums through archive.org here: web.archive.org/web/20190322035609/http://sedevacantist.com/viewforum.php?f=12&sid=5c288258be6da0ef91a327232ad62405, it will be great to check these out too now. God Bless and Help you mate, all the best. Sincerely, Adam
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 24, 2022 18:45:20 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2022 18:19:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Sept 26, 2022 7:26:32 GMT -5
Your welcome...but it doesnt get a lot of visits.
|
|