Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Heiner/TR attacks CMRI  (Read 42485 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Heiner/TR attacks CMRI
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2022, 06:08:19 AM »
Dogmatic non una cuм is straight from the pit of Hell and is a tool used by Satan to keep traditional Catholics from comingling or from the sacraments altogether.

I've said this before, but, there is absolutely no historical or Magisterial basis for non una cuм. At all. It is a novelty dreamed up by Bp. Guerard des Lauriers and later catapulted by Fr. Cekada into the only "Catholic" position. Citing an early 19th century English Missal, John Daly noted that the King of England is also prayed una cuм in the Mass following the Pope and the Ordinary; proving that the intention is that the Mass is offered through the office of the one named, not the person. Otherwise, all English Masses would have been mortally sinful to assist at because the Anglican King of England was named una cuм.

Furthermore, we have the Western Schism to look at as well. Where saints, such as St. Vincent Ferrer, supported the later-declared anti-Pope over the true Pope; therefore, meaning that he offered Masses una cuм an anti-Pope, and, by the logic of this position would have been offending God by committing a grave sin. Yet, as we know, St. Vincent was a great saint who was merely mistaken on the identity of the Pope, and therefore, was not at fault. One could retort that anti-Pope Benedict XIII was "orthodox" therefore nullifying any such comparisons between anti-Pope Francis and Benedict XIII. But this, too, is nonsense, as it either way, by their logic, the Masses said by St. Vincent would still be gravely sinful because a false Pope was named in the Canon.

Therefore, to dogmatically declare that there is not only sin attached to assisting at a Mass una cuм Francesco, but even a mortal sin, is beyond the authority of those proclaiming it: namely, SGG and MHTS. It is correct to form an opinion on the Pope question, or even act on it individually, but to teach the laity that it would be a sin to attend an SSPX, or even SSPX-Resistance, Mass because they say it una cuм Francesco is divisive, diabolism.

"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
[Mark 3:25]
What do priests pray at that part during sedevacante? Do they omit it entirely or just omit the name of the Pope?

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Heiner/TR attacks CMRI
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2022, 06:29:07 AM »
It's funny how over the decades since V2, the same old arguments, questions, opinions etc., keep coming up over and over again - as if the discovery or statements that some want to make are original, and/or have not already been addressed or hashed over a million times in the last 60 years.


From, Who Shall Ascend?, published in 1992.....

"....The divisive aberration of Sedevacantism is due to nothing else
than certain priests' losing sight of their proper roles in our present
malaise. To save the Church from an heretical pope was never their
assignment. Securing the Apostolic succession of the Church was
never their assignment. What was their assignment? It was to take
care of the people whom God sent them as best they could, say their
prayers faithfully, study and pray that they might not themselves fall
victim to the spirit of Liberalism and worldliness, and keep their torment
and speculations to themselves. The hierarchical structure of the
Church and the papacy are not their business. Such high matters are
the province of none other than Christ Himself and His Mother and
the Apostles.

What happened? Certain priests, having concluded that Pope
John Paul II was not the true Pope of the Roman Church, began to
communicate their fears and misgivings on the subject to others, particularly
to laypeople, verbally and in writing. Why did they address
their speculations to the people, who could not evaluate them? Why
did they not discuss their thoughts with their fellow priests? Because
Traditionalist priests do not get along with each other, and they will
not abide disagreement with themselves. They communicated their
conclusions to those who have learned that it is the better part of valor
not to disagree with these oracles-if, that is, they wished to continue
to receive the Sacraments from them.

What happened? One step followed another in logical sequence.
If John Paul II is not the true Pope, he does not deserve that I should
pronounce his name in the Canon of the Mass. Someone else
reasoned: If John Paul II is not the true Pope, who is? Why, Cardinal
Sin, to be sure. Someone else concluded: Anyone who names Pope
John Paul II in the Canon of Mass is a part of the Conciliar Establishment.
Someone else ruled: It is a sin, a mortal sin, to include the name
of John Paul II in the Canon of the Mass. Someone else warned: I will
not give Communion to anyone who attends the Mass of any priest
who names John Paul II in the Canon of the Mass. Where John Paul II
rules the Church not at all, these petty pontiffs rule it with Calvinesque
arbitrariness...."


Re: Heiner/TR attacks CMRI
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2022, 06:53:05 AM »
I'm guessing it really boils down to the CMRI probably didn't take sides in their recent squabbles.

I think it's time for us to end our subscription to True Restoration.

Re: Heiner/TR attacks CMRI
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2022, 07:09:28 AM »
. This issue is the one thing that never sat right with me, and it is because it isn't supported by Canon Law or Catholic teaching, yet is presented as such by +Sanborn, +Cekada, +Dolan and places like Novus Ordo Watch as essential to being a "true" Catholic (rather than a dreaded "semi-Trad")
No you're not.
Does Novus Ordo Watch actually belong in this grouping?  Mario Derksen gave a great talk at the most recent CMRI 2021 Fatima Conference

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: Heiner/TR attacks CMRI
« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2022, 07:27:48 AM »

Quote
Dogmatic non una cuм is straight from the pit of Hell and is a tool used by Satan to keep traditional Catholics from comingling or from the sacraments altogether.

I've said this before, but, there is absolutely no historical or Magisterial basis for non una cuм. At all. It is a novelty dreamed up by Bp. Guerard des Lauriers and later catapulted by Fr. Cekada into the only "Catholic" position. Citing an early 19th century English Missal, John Daly noted that the King of England is also prayed una cuм in the Mass following the Pope and the Ordinary; proving that the intention is that the Mass is offered through the office of the one named, not the person. Otherwise, all English Masses would have been mortally sinful to assist at because the Anglican King of England was named una cuм.

Furthermore, we have the Western Schism to look at as well. Where saints, such as St. Vincent Ferrer, supported the later-declared anti-Pope over the true Pope; therefore, meaning that he offered Masses una cuм an anti-Pope, and, by the logic of this position would have been offending God by committing a grave sin. Yet, as we know, St. Vincent was a great saint who was merely mistaken on the identity of the Pope, and therefore, was not at fault. One could retort that anti-Pope Benedict XIII was "orthodox" therefore nullifying any such comparisons between anti-Pope Francis and Benedict XIII. But this, too, is nonsense, as it either way, by their logic, the Masses said by St. Vincent would still be gravely sinful because a false Pope was named in the Canon.

Therefore, to dogmatically declare that there is not only sin attached to assisting at a Mass una cuм Francesco, but even a mortal sin, is beyond the authority of those proclaiming it: namely, SGG and MHTS. It is correct to form an opinion on the Pope question, or even act on it individually, but to teach the laity that it would be a sin to attend an SSPX, or even SSPX-Resistance, Mass because they say it una cuм Francesco is divisive, diabolism.

"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
[Mark 3:25]


Well said. I have said many times in the past how Cekada's novel "Una cuм" construct was a convenient, selfish, self-serving device to "remove the competition" and make more income/money for himself and his chapel(s).

What better way to "own" your parishioners, than by removing all other Masses as an option?

It's diabolically brilliant -- and quite obvious.