"This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists...ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer"- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
No intent to start any dispute, just curious what thought processes or evidence different groups/camps base their stances regarding this issue on.Since you are asking sedes:
Question posed to sedes.
Well, even most sedes had no problem with "Una cuм" Masses before Fr. Cekada came along and invented this NOVEL and self-serving doctrine.
Father Cekada did some good work, but he did come up with a few doozies over the years as well, in addition to the "una cuм" (which even the Dimond Brothers reject)
1) "Cekadism" (notion that theologians enjoy some kind of role in the Ecclesia Docens nearly to the point of infallibility) -- rejected explicitly by Monsignor Fenton
2) Terri Schiavo analysis (scandalous and wrong)
3) Reasons for removing the Prayers after Low Mass
Fr. Cekada was the one apparently who came up with this una cuм nonsense, but doesn't Bp. Sanborn went along with him?
I had the impression that Bp. Sanborn swears by the una cuм rule too, saying that it is sinful to attend at masses that include the Pope's name in the Canon.
I didn't know the Dimonds rejected non una cuм. That's interesting. I'd love to know their rationale.go to vatican catholic .com and search "una cuм mass" and some articles pop up where they explain their position.
From Bishop Sanborn:
"Finally I hold that the traditional Latin Mass which is offered together with (una cuм) the Novus Ordo hierarchy is objectively sacrilegious. Consequently I affirm that active participation in Masses or services in which the name of a Novus Ordo hierarch is mentioned is objectively a mortal sin."
https://romancatholicinstitute.org/hello-world/ (https://romancatholicinstitute.org/hello-world/)
A digression, but I can't stand the phrase "I assist at Mass."
Sounds like "active participation."
Or, "I help the priest at Mas. I'm his assistant."
I prefer "I go to Mass."
Well, even most sedes had no problem with "Una cuм" Masses before Fr. Cekada came along and invented this NOVEL and self-serving doctrine.Well said!
The idea that assisting at a regular Tridentine Mass, wherein the priest prays for the Pope "one with Pope N... and our Bishop N..." somehow means we are one with his heresies and/or personal sins -- that's an insane idea that never once entered into any Traditional Catholic's mind before Fr. Cekada came along.
Fr. Cekada lived and had his apostolate in CINCINNATI, OH which is a haven of Traditional Catholicism, with around TWELVE Traditional Catholic flavors/groups/options.
So you see, it's understandable (humanly speaking) that Fr. Cekada would have naturally been tempted to come up with a scheme to "eliminate the competition" and make his flock permanently his own.
And so he did.
And for that very human, selfish, sinful, and base move, I lost all respect for him.
I've been a Traditional Catholic my whole life, and I'm in my 40's, having grown up at an independent chapel. I know Traditional Catholicism intimately. I know how they thought and believed in the early days. They avoided N.O. Masses, but they attended pretty much ANY Tridentine Mass, as long as the priest was valid. None of this "anti-Una cuм" nonsense. And sedevacantism was a side thing, a personal opinion, not something you included in your identity. ("I want to find a good, Traditional, Sedevacantist girl and get married...") Those words in quotes would have sounded like this: "I want to find a good, modest, Traditional Catholic girl named Emily and get married, and then..." Or mentioning specific interests/hobbies that your future spouse would have. It would be unrealistic and cute, something kids would say about "when they grow up" -- but no adults would say it or mean it.
But not him saying that everyone has to believe this and act upon or it is a mortal sin and not fully Catholic if the Church Herself has not yet officially declared it so.From Ex Quo, Pope Benedict XIV in the year 1756
Fr. Cekada was the one apparently who came up with this una cuм nonsense, but doesn't Bp. Sanborn went along with him?Here is how "they" present the argument to you. If you believe Pope Bergolio is the Pope then why would attend here? A pressure tactic so you give your consent. Who is dumb enough to argue with a priest or bishop if they wished to attend their masses.
I had the impression that Bp. Sanborn swears by the una cuм rule too, saying that it is sinful to attend at masses that include the Pope's name in the Canon.
A digression, but I can't stand the phrase "I assist at Mass."Interestingly, Bishop Sanborn uses the phrase "active participation", and I assume he is looking at it from the most traditional viewpoint.
Sounds like "active participation."
Or, "I help the priest at Mass. I'm his assistant. I'll assist him"
I prefer "I go to Mass."
I hold the sedevacantist position and will attend una cuм masses. From the research I have done, I believe the una cuм clause is principally intercessory. Therefore it seems to me that including an antipope in the una cuм, even an heretical antipope, is nothing other than an error of fact. And as such, it should not trouble the conscience of any person assisting at such a mass.Good explanation!
go to vatican catholic .com and search "una cuм mass" and some articles pop up where they explain their position.
There we have it. Thank you.
Being a Traditionalist Catholic is so interesting because every now and then we get new dogmas proclaimed. And you get to choose which ones you accept.;)
Well said!Well said! This is where I stand on most “issues” within Tradition. The only time I’d not attend a Mass or receive Sacraments is if something is positively against Faith and morals, or if someone in authority like the priest interviews me, and forbids me to receive Communion or refuses absolution because I believe or do something he believes to be objectively sinful. (Even if I know he’s wrong, it’s not my place as a laywoman to defy his rules.)
I have a lot of respect for Bishop Sanborn and Father Cekada but this is one of the things which I think that they push too far.
I can understand a priest or bishop deciding that he himself in good conscience can not say "Pope Francis"s name in the Mass...
But not him saying that everyone has to believe this and act upon or it is a mortal sin and not fully Catholic if the Church Herself has not yet officially declared it so.
Furthermore Bp. Sanborn says publicly and explicitly that, after he has explained the position to faithful, if they persist in going to SSPX Masses, he refuses them Holy Communion.What do you think would happen if after being refused Communion for attending SSPX masses, said person would still attend bishop Sanborn's masses, but wouldn't receive Communion. Strictly speaking you're only obligated to receive once a year. You still fulfill your Sunday obligation even if you don't receive Communion.
A digression, but I can't stand the phrase "I assist at Mass."
Sounds like "active participation."
Or, "I help the priest at Mass. I'm his assistant. I'll assist him"
I prefer "I go to Mass."
assist
ə-sĭst′
intransitive verb
- To give help or support to, especially as a subordinate or supplement; aid.
- To give aid or support.
- To be present, as at a conference.
Only the third definition fits Mass attendance.
I would assume (and you know what happens when you "assume") that it is cognate to the French assister à, which simply means "attend" or "be present at", without implying that you did something to help out someone (such as the priest).
I use it simply because it's traditional, and not used by Newchurchers. A thumb in the eye of the modernizers, you could say.
Fr. Cekada was the one apparently who came up with this una cuм nonsense, but doesn't Bp. Sanborn went along with him?
From Bishop Sanborn:
"Finally I hold that the traditional Latin Mass which is offered together with (una cuм) the Novus Ordo hierarchy is objectively sacrilegious. Consequently I affirm that active participation in Masses or services in which the name of a Novus Ordo hierarch is mentioned is objectively a mortal sin."
https://romancatholicinstitute.org/hello-world/ (https://romancatholicinstitute.org/hello-world/)
Well, even most sedes had no problem with "Una cuм" Masses before Fr. Cekada came along and invented this NOVEL and self-serving doctrine.
The idea that assisting at a regular Tridentine Mass, wherein the priest prays for the Pope "one with Pope N... and our Bishop N..." somehow means we are one with his heresies and/or personal sins -- that's an insane idea that never once entered into any Traditional Catholic's mind before Fr. Cekada came along.
Fr. C only came onboard many years AFTER Bp. Sanborn and PH Omlor espoused the idea. I was at MHT during those years.I had thought +Des Lauriers was the first to espouse the anti una cuм position
What do you think would happen if after being refused Communion for attending SSPX masses, said person would still attend bishop Sanborn's masses, but wouldn't receive Communion. Strictly speaking you're only obligated to receive once a year. You still fulfill your Sunday obligation even if you don't receive Communion.
go to vatican catholic .com and search "una cuм mass" and some articles pop up where they explain their position.https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/una-cuм-mass/
These Catholic priests recognized that, in necessities and crises, things may be done, for the greater benefit of souls and spiritual advantage, that normally wouldn’t be done, as long as the faith is not compromised. They recognized that to receive a sacrament from a priest is not to endorse that priest’s personal heresies or his compromises, unless that priest imposes them upon you or unless you support him in those heresies or unless he makes his heretical views notorious. These Catholic priests recognized that the sacraments are powerful; that God wants people to receive them, if they can receive them in an acceptable way without any denial of the faith. They recognized that those Catholics who were approaching the compromising priest in that awful period under Elizabeth, would not have been going to such priests if they had another option. The radical schismatics, who viciously condemn our view on this matter, better think again; for they are wrong and headed toward the abyss. This is because condemning as heretics people who aren’t is schismatic.
Erroneously treating people as public sinners -- e.g., refusing them communion, etc -- is, ironically, committing public sin. The SSPV are (blind, hypocritical) masters at this.This is one of the pros for the SSPX, at least they don't bar you from communion for stuff like this (or rejecting BoD/BoB/II).
I had thought +Des Lauriers was the first to espouse the anti una cuм position
This is one of the pros for the SSPX, at least they don't bar you from communion for stuff like this (or rejecting BoD/BoB/II).
It’s widely used by conciliarists, as the inherent ambiguity of the term implies the modernist rendition of “helping the priest” and /or “doing something essential.”
It’s widely used by conciliarists, as the inherent ambiguity of the term implies the modernist rendition of “helping the priest” and /or “doing something essential.”I had NEVER heard the term UNTIL I became Traditional.
Fr. C only came onboard many years AFTER Bp. Sanborn and PH Omlor espoused the idea. I was at MHT during those years.I had heard that P. Omlor was the person who first introduced it. I didn't realize though that Bishop Sanborn promoted it before Father Cekada. Thank you for sharing.
Fr. C was actually LATE to the game. It was a practical move and when I was at MHT he totally disagreed with the anti-una-cuм position. At-the-time Fr. Sanborn and PH Omlor had already espoused the position WELL before Fr. Cekada and Bp. Dolan did so. Frankly, the best case, IMO, was made by PHO, whose entire argument was undone by an "anonymous" objection (made by Fr. Collins), one which PHO was honorable enough to present and answer at the end of his booklet Sedevecantists and the Una-cuм Problem. I posted about this issue MANY times on CI years ago, but finding those comments would require some digging.God bless, Father Collins! If only more traditional priests were like him! He is sorely missed!
What do you think would happen if after being refused Communion for attending SSPX masses, said person would still attend bishop Sanborn's masses, but wouldn't receive Communion. Strictly speaking you're only obligated to receive once a year. You still fulfill your Sunday obligation even if you don't receive Communion.
Fr. C was actually LATE to the game. It was a practical move and when I was at MHT he totally disagreed with the anti-una-cuм position. At-the-time Fr. Sanborn and PH Omlor had already espoused the position WELL before Fr. Cekada and Bp. Dolan did so. Frankly, the best case, IMO, was made by PHO, whose entire argument was undone by an "anonymous" objection (made by Fr. Collins), one which PHO was honorable enough to present and answer at the end of his booklet Sedevecantists and the Una-cuм Problem. I posted about this issue MANY times on CI years ago, but finding those comments would require some digging.Ave María,
This is one of the pros for the SSPX, at least they don't bar you from communion for stuff like this (or rejecting BoD/BoB/II).I am sorry to say they do it too!
I cannot speak from experience, as I have very rarely ASSISTED ;) at an SSPX Mass. However, I have heard of SVs being treated similarly, even if rarely, by SSPX priests. No one is blameless in the Wild West of Traddieland. Sad but true.
I am sorry to say they do it too!Oh dear that's not good. Was the denial only for going to resistance mass? Or was doctrines on salvation and baptism also involved?
I have heard of it happening in Europe, and it happened here in Australia too. Denied communion for attending 'Resistance' masses, to a child too!!
Oh dear that's not good. Was the denial only for going to resistance mass? Or was doctrines on salvation and baptism also involved?Only going to Resistance Mass... With a six-year old it's not a question of doctrine 😉.
Only going to Resistance Mass... With a six-year old it's not a question of doctrine 😉.What I know from personal knowledge is that the SSPX will not deny communion to sedevacantists or those who attend Resistance Masses, UNLESS you are known to be canvassing people or distributing literature. In essence, you should keep your sedevacantist/Resistance opinions to yourselves. In the past some people have been ejected from the chapels because they were caught distributing unauthorized literature.
What I know from personal knowledge is that the SSPX will not deny communion to sedevacantists or those who attend Resistance Masses, UNLESS you are known to be canvassing people or distributing literature. In essence, you should keep your sedevacantist/Resistance opinions to yourselves. In the past some people have been ejected from the chapels because they were caught distributing unauthorized literature.Well, let me tell you that was NOT the case. A six year old doesn't canvass people or distribute literature. Parents were not denied communion, only the six year old...
No, they are obviously not. Only Fr. Cekada came up with this novel doctrine against Masses where the Pope is named in the Canon -- which is prescribed by the rubrics.With all due respect, Matthew, Fr. Cekada was not the originator of this issue. Here's Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, the ghostwriter of the 'Ottaviani Intervention', condemning "una cuм" masses in the late 1980s:
This being so, we must conclude that the “una cuм” Mass is, “ex se”, objectively stained with sacrilege. The MASS, in fact, is the sacred action par excellence, since the Priest acts “in Persona Christi”. And if this instrumental role eminently concerns the consecratory act, it is equally realized, by derivation, in what precedes and prepares this act, or what immediately follows it. Now, everything that a sacred action includes must be pure, that is, in conformity with that which nature requires. A proclamation that immediately specifies the concrete exercise of the Faith must always be TRUE, taking into account Faith itself. It must be so, in a second sense, if it is done during a sacred action. Therefore, if a proclamation that immediately specifies the concrete exercise of the Faith is made during a sacred action, and if it is erroneous, it constitutes IPSO FACTO AND OBJECTIVELY A SIN, not only against the Faith but also against the sacred action. Such a proclamation is therefore tainted [weighed on] by a crime of the kind: “Sacrilege”: and this is so OBJECTIVELY AND INESCAPABLY, regardless of the sin committed by the participants [see 6].
(...)
Such a Mass is valid [assuming the priest has been validly ordained!], due to the rite which, like the Deposit, remains divinely guaranteed by the Magisterium of the Church. However, whatever desire the celebrant may SUBJECTIVELY have, the act he carries out OBJECTIVELY and INELUCTABLY implies the affirmation of being in communion with [una cuм], and even under the DEPENDENCE of [papa nostro] a person in a state of capital schism. The act of such a celebration is therefore tainted with a crime of the kind: “schism”; and this, OBJECTIVELY AND INELUCTABLY, regardless of the sin committed by the participants: the celebrating priest, or the attending faithful [see 6].
Well, let me tell you that was NOT the case. A six year old doesn't canvass people or distribute literature. Parents were not denied communion, only the six year old...Like a lot of other things SSPX, I believe this happened but it is not official or any kind of across the board rule, rather, it depends on the priest. Heck, I invited my SSPX priest to a resistance mass when +Williamson came to my area 5 or 6 years ago - he knew that I and some others from our SSPX chapel went and nothing at all happened to any of us. Same thing when +Zendejas visited some years later, again, nothing happened.
In France, Father Pivert's (Resistance) sister was also denied communion by the SSPX. And if memory serves , it also happened in New Zealand, although I do not know to whom.
No, they are obviously not. Only Fr. Cekada came up with this novel doctrine against Masses where the Pope is named in the Canon -- which is prescribed by the rubrics.From an interview with pre-sede Fred Dimond, Fr. Wathen explains it the way all Catholics believed (and most trads still believe), prior to the advent of sedeism, note that Fred was in total agreement....
Fr. Wathen:
"...Not to include the name of the pope in the Mass is an act of schism. No priest has the right to alter the Rite of the Mass. This is why we condemn the new "mass," and we condemn as a mortal sin any priest saying the new "mass," it is a departure from the Mass he is supposed to say. In the case of the sedevacantists, they make this not small departure. They, on their own, omit the name of the pope, which the rubrics require that they include. The rubrics require that they pray for the pope. When they refuse to pray for pope John Paul II, they are renouncing their obedience to him.
They declare that they must do this in order not to participate in his heresies.
We say that that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy..."
Regarding the 6-year-old being refused communion: I thought First Communion was given to at least 7-year-olds. Should the 6-year-old be receiving at all?Ya really! I completely missed that.
EDIT: Does anybody know where I can find the booklet "Sedevacantists and the una cuм problem" by Pattrick Henry Omlor or, at least, the objection by Fr. Collins that Gladius Veritatis mentioned in a previous post on this thread?Scroll down a bit on the right (http://www.catholicresearchinstitute.com/crifiles/Patrick_Henry_Omlor.pdf)
1756 Bull of Pope Benedict XIV:
“…’Therefore where commemorations are customarily made in the sacred liturgy, the Roman Pontiff should be first commemorated, then one’s own Bishop and Patriarch, provided they are Catholic. But if either of both of them are schismatics or heretics they should by no means be commemorated’.”
You quote explicitly says the "Roman Pontiff should be first commemorated." He then goes onto say as long as the bishop and patriarch are Catholic, they should also be mentioned - which I would think he is referring to the patriarch specifically, but who knows?Quote1756 Bull of Pope Benedict XIV:
“…’Therefore where commemorations are customarily made in the sacred liturgy, the Roman Pontiff should be first commemorated, then one’s own Bishop and Patriarch, provided they are Catholic. But if either of both of them are schismatics or heretics they should by no means be commemorated’.”
Why doesn't this quote from Benedict XIV settle it for all "Traditional Catholics?" This is settled teaching coming from a papal Bull.
If you believe that the person claiming to the Pope is a heretic, to attend such a mass outside of some necessity is not a good thing. Does it need to be a "sin" to avoid something bad? Is it not at least a near occasion of sin?
Why doesn't this quote from Benedict XIV settle it for all "Traditional Catholics?" This is settled teaching coming from a papal Bull.
If you believe that the person claiming to the Pope is a heretic, to attend such a mass outside of some necessity is not a good thing. Does it need to be a "sin" to avoid something bad? Is it not at least a near occasion of sin?
You quote explicitly says the "Roman Pontiff should be first commemorated." He then goes onto say as long as the bishop and patriarch are Catholic, they should also be mentioned - which I would think he is referring to the patriarch specifically, but who knows?
But your question is my question as well.....
From Ex Quo, Pope Benedict XIV in the year 1756
“Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world” (Chronicle, p.228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: “It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world” (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).
You apparently just want to start a fight. I bolded the key words in my question. Here are my words again:Of course the pope is a heretic, and unless I was told by the priest celebrating the Mass, I would not know whether he is praying for the pope in the Canon of the Mass or not - and neither would you, or anyone other than the priest for that matter, but the pope (BXIV) clearly says what he clearly says - that much is absolute whether you and I agree with him or not.
"If you believe that the person claiming to be the Pope is a heretic..."
Some Trads are not sure what to believe. They are confused and misled. I'm not talking about those people. I'm referring specifically to those Trads who are morally-convinced that Bergoglio is a heretic.
Are you saying that Benedict XIV thought that if a future papal claimant was a heretic, then a Catholic priest should name him in the Canon? When Benedict XIV says "the Apostolic one" could he have possibly meant a manifest heretic posing as the Pope? Of course not.
So do you believe Bergoglio is a heretic or not, Stubborn? Let's start with that.
I say if you do believe he's a heretic, then I say that it would "be a bad thing," outside of some necessity, to attend a Mass in which a heretic is commemorated. And it could be a near occasion of sin because it promotes indifferentism to the teaching that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.
And it could be scandalous to some who believe that true teaching and see a Trad who seems to be indifferent to it. By your example, you teach those around you that heresy is no biggie, even in the case of the Pope. Is that not scandalous?
Of course the pope is a heretic, and unless I was told by the priest celebrating the Mass, I would not know whether he is praying for the pope in the Canon of the Mass or not - and neither would you, or anyone other than the priest for that matter, but the pope (BXIV) clearly says what he clearly says - that much is absolute whether you and I agree with him or not.
Interesting that you say, unless you were "told by the priest celebrating the Mass." So are you saying that you are not intimately familiar with the positions of the priests on this issue where YOU (Stubborn) attend Mass? Please answer "yes" or "no."No
Do you not think it would be important to ask your priest if he says the name of a person that he believes to be a heretic in the Mass or are you indifferent to that fact? Please answer "It is important" or "I am indifferent."
After you answer those questions, I will be happy to discuss further. Please just answer the simple questions that I asked. Thanks.
No
It is important
So, as you say, it is important to ask your priest if he believes Bergoglio is a heretic and he says his name in the Mass. Why is this "important?"
That is an interesting Fr. Wathen quote on the issue of interjecting "private judgment" by omitting the name of the bishop or pope in the canon.I think so too. Father was answering a question asked by Fred Dimond in an interview, Fred was wholeheartedly agreeing with every word.
Well, I don't have to ask, but it's important because “the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism."
"...For Augustine, mindful that the Lord established the foundation of the Church on the Apostolic sees, says that whosoever removes himself from the authority and communion of the prelates of those sees is in schism."
He states plainly that there is no church apart from one which is firmly established on the pontifical bases of the Apostolic sees. Thus how can you believe that you are not separated from the communion of the whole world if you do not commemorate my name during the sacred mysteries, according to custom? For you see that the strength of the Apostolic See resides in me, despite my unworthiness, through episcopal succession at the present time”- Ex Quo
Priests and laypeople forget that it is only their opinion that the Chair is vacant. Fr. Wathen states it as the Church has always taught it.... "We say that that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy."
Regarding the 6-year-old being refused communion: I thought First Communion was given to at least 7-year-olds. Should the 6-year-old be receiving at all?Maybe in the USA. But in the rest of the world it's a question of maturity. My mother made her First Communion at 5yo, me at 6yo, lots of my nephews and nieces at 5yo. It's up to the parents and the priest to decide. No hard and fast rule.
On the other hand, the Catholic who is convinced that the papal claimant is a heretic but continues to claim to be in communion with him is, at best, a very confused person, a person who is unaware or ignores the plain Apostolic teaching of the Church to avoid heretics.
That phrase "passive assistance" is open to modernism and lax behavior in so many cases. If I attend the Novus Ordo Mass, for whatever reason, I am there by an act of will, and I am actively assisting, call it whatever you will. If a man's daughter decides to get an abortion he cannot say to himself, "Well, I will just come along and passively assist and say my rosary while you get an abortion."The abortion argument you used is very compelling and it’s a good argument.
No, the principle is, if the action is an ipso facto mortal sin, my mere presence is an endorsement. That is the way I see it.
That is an interesting Fr. Wathen quote on the issue of interjecting "private judgment" by omitting the name of the bishop or pope in the canon.
If a faithful Catholic is personally convinced that the man claiming to be the Pope is actually a heretic, then that faithful Catholic must follow his conscience and Catholic teaching where it leads him. He must separate himself from that false papal claimant.He is only a "false papal claimant" because that is what some trads believe, but that belief does not make it so. In actuality, if we go by both tradition, and the Vincentian Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins (d. 445), that belief is not even Catholic.
Since the Church teaches that a manifest heretic loses his office [his authority and his membership in the Church] ipso facto, the Catholic who remains in communion with such a perceived heretic would be revealing his indifferentism to heresy.Having argued against it for decades, I understand your position very well. When the starting point is a vacant Chair, I understand that you do not agree that the teaching of PBXIV applies in this crisis, but then why do popes bother to teach any truth at all if those truths cease, or are only as important as yesterday's headlines when crises pertaining to those truths arise in the Church?
The faithful Catholic would not be in "schism" from a real Pope. Even if he is mistaken about the fact of heresy in his personal judgment, he would be correctly separating himself from a person whom he believes to be a heretic, which he is required to do by perennial Church teaching. Can you not admit at least this?
On the other hand, the Catholic who is convinced that the papal claimant is a heretic but continues to claim to be in communion with him is, at best, a very confused person, a person who is unaware or ignores the plain Apostolic teaching of the Church to avoid heretics.
The abortion argument you used is very compelling and it’s a good argument.Unlike the prot services, the new "mass" was perpetrated for one reason mainly, to replace and obliterate the True Mass and destroy the faith. That is the reason why it is here. That is the reason we stay away from it.
It raised an honest question in my mind: pre Vatican 2 my understanding is the Church permitted passive attendance at non Catholic weddings and funerals for family reasons, for example those of Protestants and “Orthodox”, yet these are also sacrilegious apes of true worship. Why is the New Mass in a different category than these? I’m not disputing active attendance btw, but only passive attendance for weddings and funerals.
Maybe in the USA. But in the rest of the world it's a question of maturity. My mother made her First Communion at 5yo, me at 6yo, lots of my nephews and nieces at 5yo. It's up to the parents and the priest to decide. No hard and fast rule.OK. Thank you. I did not realize this.
"This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists...ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer"- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989Would anyone have a quote from Archbishop Lefebvre defining the meaning of the prayer? To me this quote is worthless unless it is followed with Magesterial teaching backing it up.
01:54 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/are-una-cuм-masses-sinful/msg898114/#msg898114)Would anyone have a quote from Archbishop Lefebvre defining the meaning of the prayer? To me this quote is worthless unless it is followed with Magesterial teaching backing it up.
It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that… well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said “There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility”. So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.