...is beyond the authority of those proclaiming it...Exactly.
Avignon->Papal schism would seem to be a problem at a more mechanical level for dogmatic non una cuм as well.How so?
How so?You're right, I'm retarded and not thinking clearly. I retract.
Anybody monopolizing truth in the Crisis probably has issues. Even though it apparently isn't Catholic enough for some of these people, His Excellency +Pivarunas' positions have aged well, taking a minimal approach to anything outside canon law and focusing on growth and getting sacraments to the laity.Listening to a conference by +Pivarunas where he touched on the una cuм issue was the thing that pulled me from despair as I was exploring the sedevacantist position. 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")
You're right, I'm retarded and not thinking clearly. I retract.No you're not.
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/097/048/218/original/c1a93608e196b42f.png)
It's not the disagreement that's problematic. It's the presumptuous anathemata and counter-anathemata that are problematic. No man alive on this Earth has the jurisdiction for such anathemata (especially not the monster "subsisting in" the Chair of Peter).
But Dolan/sanborn/selway just gave an annulment so a man could marry Bp selway’s niece. The man was married one day, not the next, married into the selways the next. This person goes to a satellite mass center of Bp Dolan’s in Wisconsin. He left the church and got married. Couple years later he came back and a couple months after that he was married to a Selway girl in the church. No wedding banns of course, completely against canon law, the marriage being hush hush. I guess Bp Selway and Dolan meant chastity and being single for people who want to marry a non-Selway.That is a serious charge that you bring forth without evidence.
These guys are a joke
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.What do priests pray at that part during sedevacante? Do they omit it entirely or just omit the name of the Pope?
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]
. 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")Does Novus Ordo Watch actually belong in this grouping? Mario Derksen gave a great talk at the most recent CMRI 2021 Fatima Conference
No you're not.
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]
Does Novus Ordo Watch actually belong in this grouping? Mario Derksen gave a great talk at the most recent CMRI 2021 Fatima ConferenceDerksen does great work, don't get me wrong, and he hasn't come out against the CMRI at all, but NOW does tend to promote the non una cuм novelty of Cekada and co.
https://youtu.be/WSxm9n_IvRI
I forget which video it was, but I also recall +Sanborn railing about tithing in his chapels stating how much they must contribute based on their income. His example was $800 a month for someone that makes $50k/year. I don't know about some of you, but, I make a little more than that as our household income as the sole breadwinner as of late, and certainly wouldn't be able to meet $800 a month in tithes.
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.
Derksen does great work, don't get me wrong, and he hasn't come out against the CMRI at all, but NOW does tend to promote the non una cuм novelty of Cekada and co.I think you have to post where he states attendance at an una cuм mass is a sin. Although he certainly doesn't encourage assistance at an una cuм mass, I don't believe he has ever gone as far as stating to do so would be a sin. He's probably more in line with the CMRI's position.
I forget which video it was, but I also recall +Sanborn railing about tithing in his chapels stating how much they must contribute based on their income. His example was $800 a month for someone that makes $50k/year. I don't know about some of you, but, I make a little more than that as our household income as the sole breadwinner as of late, and certainly wouldn't be able to meet $800 a month in tithes.
That was a big red flag for me.
A "tithe" has always been understood to be 10%. 10% of $50,000 is $5000, which comes to $417/month. Where in the world did he come up with $800? [And I suspect many people might have difficulty meeting the $400+ per month.]Maybe the video should be provided. I wonder whether this was in reference to making a lump sum donation to help fund the new seminary building.
Maybe the video should be provided. I wonder whether this was in reference to making a lump sum donation to help fund the new seminary building.Yeah, if I remember which video it was I will post it
Derksen does great work, don't get me wrong, and he hasn't come out against the CMRI at all, but NOW does tend to promote the non una cuм novelty of Cekada and co.Mario Derksen attends a CMRI chapel. I've not seen this promotion of the "non-una cuм novelty of Father Cekada and co." on Novus Ordo Watch. I think you may be confusing the position of Novus Ordo Watch with the people who post comments. He is most definitely against the Novus Ordo and believes that the sedevacantist position is the correct position, but, as far as I can tell, his doctrinal positions on this matter pretty much mirror those of Bishop Pivarunas and the CMRI.
Mario Derksen attends a CMRI chapel. I've not seen this promotion of the "non-una cuм novelty of Father Cekada and co." on Novus Ordo Watch. I think you may be confusing the position of Novus Ordo Watch with the people who post comments. He is most definitely against the Novus Ordo and believes that the sedevacantist position is the correct position, but, as far as I can tell, his doctrinal positions on this matter pretty much mirror those of Bishop Pivarunas and the CMRI.That very well could be the case, I'm sure I'm mistaken. Mea culpa
That very well could be the case, I'm sure I'm mistaken. Mea culpaNo problem. I know that the CMRI chapel Mary Immaculate Queen always links and updates with NOW articles.
This is another accusation I've seen thrown around on the internet, but I do not recall seeing any evidence for it.
The CMRI’s laxity on this issue is only more troubling when compounded by their permissiveness in the creation of annulment tribunals. The SSPX has engaged in this sham for years, but it has been known for some time that some of the CMRI’s priests engage in the judging of marriage cases. But this is something that falls directly under the legal functions of the Church and does not fall under epikeia. No one currently possesses the authority to issue judgments in these marriage cases and so the best our clergy can do is investigate to give someone some sense of probability, but no more than that.
In any case, the fact that even as late as 1968 there were only 338 annulments given for the entire United States (https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2011/04/28/annulment-nation/) that year should give helpful context in this regard.
In our unfortunate situation, there is an easy and effective way for these people to solve their marital dilemmas: abstinence and chastity. One should not risk a “re-marriage” if one’s “previous” marriage is doubtful or probably invalid.
.
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.
Also, nice that he needs to cite Bp. Sanborn's other novelty: "opinionism".
Why the CMRI Is Not an Option for Serious Catholics
BY STEPHEN HEINER (https://www.truerestoration.org/author/stephen/) · JANUARY 21, 2022
As best as I recall, Sanborn (years ago) used the label "opinionism" to describe a response within Traddieland (to V2) that he took to be erroneous. It seems you are speaking of something else. Please clarify. Thank you.It was in reference to this article by Bp. Sanborn: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Opinionism.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Opinionism.pdf)
It was in reference to this article by Bp. Sanborn: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Opinionism.pdf (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Opinionism.pdf)
It's hilarious to see this because it makes the Dimonds look tamer now.Yeah, don't the Dimonds think that the problem is with what comes out of the pulpit rather than the Canon?
I remember Stephen encouraging me to attend the CMRI back in 2013-2014.
Stephen has bought hook, line and sinker into the MHT cult. Pretty sad.
Heiner is an unprincipled, opportunistic DB. He passes for reasonably smart within the Traddieland of 2022 but is, in the end, a pseudo-intellectual whose "journalism" is suspect.What's a "DB"? Sorry, I just can't work it out from context.
Heiner is ... in the end, a pseudo-intellectual ...
What's a "DB"? Sorry, I just can't work it out from context.(https://media0.giphy.com/media/V2Jx73E604ErS/giphy.gif?cid=790b7611226fe4a51c56ec9d659b47de214ccff27e0d525a&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
What's a "DB"? Sorry, I just can't work it out from context.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/V2Jx73E604ErS/giphy.gif?cid=790b7611226fe4a51c56ec9d659b47de214ccff27e0d525a&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g):laugh1: Thanks. It now makes sense in context.
It's another way to already divide the already horrifically divided Traditionalist Catholic world, which is becoming Protestantism without the theology, if it isn't already there. What's one of the hallmarks of Northern Europe's biggest export 500 years after the Reformation? Division. Thousands of splits in half a millennium.Agreed. Honestly, it goes to show the absolute importance of having an orthodox (or valid, depending on your position) Pope.
Most of the Trad world, especially the St. Gertrude crowd is the same. Non-una-cuм is just their way of making themselves into their own church by inventing their own theology and making themselves the only acceptable place to go to Mass and the Sacraments. It's asinine.
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 own a pair of English printed hand missals, from the early 1800s, one which I think is what Mr Daly cited (there's a scan of it in full on archive.org), and also a priestly missal (a bit bigger than a Maryknoll missal and with a fine cover, which is a bit fragile) with the same, used in Co. Kilkenny, Ireland from the late 19th century onwards. Neither Queen Victoria nor Edward VII were Catholic, even if her son loved France and its women. That's a very strong summary done by you on the matter. Non una cuм seems a device to keep people from going to other chapels.
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]
Any kind of Communicatio in Sacris/Divinis with a heretic and/or schismatic or Communicatio in Sacris/Divinis with those in communion with a heretic or schismatic was unanimously held to be forbidden by all of the Church Fathers & Church Councils as well as the vast majority of theologians, Popes, and Doctors of the Church.That's all well and good, but, how can any of that apply if Francis has never been formally declared a heretic by the Holy Office? I can believe that someone is a heretic, but, that remains in the realm of my opinion, especially when pertaining to clergy or the Pontiff, until the Church makes a declaration.
The logic is simple.
a) If Bergoglio is a heretic then one cannot be in communion with him, directly or indirectly, (knowingly and intentionally) under pain of heresy and mortal sin.
b) The CMRI & similar groups believe Bergoglio is a heretic.
c) The CMRI and similar groups are in indirect communion with Bergoglio. i.e. They are in communion with those who are directly in communion with Bergoglio such as the SSPX which offers the Una cuм Mass.
d) The CMRI and similar groups are heretics themselves for being in intentional indirect communion with a man they consider a heretic.
In conclusion, if you believe that Bergoglio is a heretic and you are in communion with him directly (Una cuм) or indirectly (being in communion with those who offer Una cuм) then you are a heretic as well.
That's all well and good, but, how can any of that apply if Francis has never been formally declared a heretic by the Holy Office? I can believe that someone is a heretic, but, that remains in the realm of my opinion, especially when pertaining to clergy or the Pontiff, until the Church makes a declaration.
Further, those instances you cite apply to communion with formal heretics, such as the Greeks or Anglicans etc. While many suspect the Novus Ordo is not the Catholic Church, this, again, has not been defined by the Holy Office. So I fail to see how that falls into Communicatio in Sacris?
This is analogous to the objective schism that the SSPX is in due to their belief that Bergoglio is a valid Roman Pontiff yet they refuse obedience to him.I can agree with that. Again, symptomatic of the fact that there is not a Catholic Pope to provide consistency and unity. So they, like us laymen, run around with their heads cut off, so to speak.
These groups do not have any internal theological consistency or logical coherence regardless of where you stand on these issues.
Any kind of Communicatio in Sacris/Divinis with a heretic and/or schismatic or Communicatio in Sacris/Divinis with those in communion with a heretic or schismatic was unanimously held to be forbidden by all of the Church Fathers & Church Councils as well as the vast majority of theologians, Popes, and Doctors of the Church.The only way this "logic" is correct is that if a person does not believe Bergoglio is a heretic, that person (i.e., a priest who offers Mass "una cuм") is, by that fact alone, also a heretic.
The logic is simple.
a) If Bergoglio is a heretic then one cannot be in communion with him, directly or indirectly, (knowingly and intentionally) under pain of heresy and mortal sin.
b) The CMRI & similar groups believe Bergoglio is a heretic.
c) The CMRI and similar groups are in indirect communion with Bergoglio. i.e. They are in communion with those who are directly in communion with Bergoglio such as the SSPX which offers the Una cuм Mass.
d) The CMRI and similar groups are heretics themselves for being in intentional indirect communion with a man they consider a heretic.
I can agree with that. Again, symptomatic of the fact that there is not a Catholic Pope to provide consistency and unity. So they, like us laymen, run around with their heads cut off, so to speak.
The only way this "logic" is correct is that if a person does not believe Bergoglio is a heretic, that person (i.e., a priest who offers Mass "una cuм") is, by that fact alone, also a heretic.
It seems that the CMRI is being condemned for not being dogmatic sedevacantists. This is a rather curious position to take on CathInfo.
At some point Heiner might just find himself the last Catholic on earth.Therein lies the temptation in this line of thought. It is a special form of pride where group A believes group B to be heretics, so group A must carry on the will of God as His chosen group. It's an insidious temptation that infects not only those making dogmatic statements of their own opinions, but a temptation all of us face as Traditional Catholics.
Heiner is going down a dark path here. He may have to hit rock bottom before he realizes that he's veered off the path.
Heiner's argument: Not only can't you be in Communion with the Conciliar Church but you can't be in Communion with a group that says it's OK to be in Communion with the Conciliar Church. So it's a view of "communion" with heresy being contagious ... like cooties. So what if someone disagrees with this and says it's OK to be in Communion with a group who says it's OK to be in Communion with the Conciliar Church?Well, I guess I can't be in Communion with them either. See where this leads? Home Aloneism .. where nobody is not in Communion by varying degrees of separationg from the Conciliar Church At some point Heiner might just find himself the last Catholic on earth.
Therein lies the temptation in this line of thought. It is a special form of pride where group A believes group B to be heretics, so group A must carry on the will of God as His chosen group. It's an insidious temptation that infects not only those making dogmatic statements of their own opinions, but a temptation all of us face as Traditional Catholics.Therein lies the temptation in this line of thought. It is a special form of pride where group A believes group B to be heretics, so group A must carry on the will of God as His chosen group. It's an insidious temptation that infects not only those making dogmatic statements of their own opinions, but a temptation all of us face as Traditional Catholics.
Tangent: This "pride of the chosen" is something I've been thinking about lately in context of the Last Days. As, after the promised Restoration of the Church, somehow a completely Catholic world will be deceived by the claims of the Antichrist to come. I believe that due to the laxity of our times, those who follow in this age of Restoration may birth a new Pharisaism. Not unlike the Babylonian Captivity, which, as a reaction, led the to the Pharisees of the Old Covenant. This kind of revived sanctimony may bring forth another, even worse, reactionary laxity that will be advantageous to the Antichrist.
We, as Traditional Catholics, need to tread carefully in esteeming ourselves too highly as a group.
I depends a bit on the flavor of "R&R" you're talking about.Note that the quote above and +ABL's explanation of the principle involved in the quote above (which +ABL applied and also insisted his SSPX apply), always applies any way - regardless of the status of the pope.
1) believe with the certainty of faith that he's the Pope and refuse submission -- this is definitely true of that position (though it can be excused subjectively due to the confusion of our times, and yet it's incredibly dangerous to Catholic faith).
BY STEPHEN HEINER (https://www.truerestoration.org/author/stephen/) · JANUARY 21, 2022
There is no Wikipedia for traditional Catholicism. One has to learn things over time from various sources and even then, one has to then contend against the widespread malformation of human minds worldwide, general disrespect of clergy, and the frequent failure to recognize the laity’s proper role in subordination to those clergy. Coming to proper Christian thinking and acting at every moment is a long process, never likely to be fully achieved by many of us during this life.
I did not come to the non una cuм position right away. My journey from ten years in the SSPX (“recognize and resist”) position to sedevacantism took roughly two years, but it would be another two before I would stop attending the SSPX Mass in Kansas City, where I lived.
This was in part due to my emotional attachment to the sacraments, but also because there were clerical voices telling me that attendance at these Masses was permissible. One of those voices was Bishop Mark Pivarunas of the CMRI.
In 2011, returning from a CMRI ordination in Spokane which I had attended, I ran into His Excellency in the airport and in the course of a brief discussion I disclosed, somewhat shamefacedly, that I attended Mass with the SSPX. Rather than rebuke this position, the bishop merely said something to the effect of “what else can you do” and said that he understood.
Lest my anecdote be marginalized as permissive in my particular case but contrary to the actual rule, there is also a publicly available docuмent (https://www.materdeiseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Thoughts-on-the-Una-cuм-Issue-by-Bp.-Pivarunas-CMRI.pdf) in which Bishop Pivarunas defends attendance at una cuм Masses as legitimate and permissible in itself.
Assistance at an una cuм Mass is objective participation in the modernist Novus Ordo. There’s simply no getting around this.
That's all well and good, but, how can any of that apply if Francis has never been formally declared a heretic by the Holy Office? I can believe that someone is a heretic, but, that remains in the realm of my opinion, especially when pertaining to clergy or the Pontiff, until the Church makes a declaration.Off topic, but these reasons are part of why I don't spend Christmas or Easter with my secularized protestant mother or adult siblings. I avoid meals with them too as they insist on holding hands and praying together. I'm glad they pray before meals, but I can't pray with them. Their idea of celebrating the Nativity and Resurrection is a desecration, and they can't see it.
Further, those instances you cite apply to communion with formal heretics, such as the Greeks or Anglicans etc. While many suspect the Novus Ordo is not the Catholic Church, this, again, has not been defined by the Holy Office. So I fail to see how that falls into Communicatio in Sacris?
The only way this "logic" is correct is that if a person does not believe Bergoglio is a heretic, that person (i.e., a priest who offers Mass "una cuм") is, by that fact alone, also a heretic.Right?! :facepalm:
It seems that the CMRI is being condemned for not being dogmatic sedevacantists. This is a rather curious position to take on CathInfo.
Well, I guess I can't be in Communion with them either. See where this leads? Home Aloneism .. where nobody is not in Communion by varying degrees of separationg from the Conciliar Church At some point Heiner might just find himself the last Catholic on earth.
Heiner is going down a dark path here. He may have to hit rock bottom before he realizes that he's veered off the path.
---------This is the part of your post I wanted to quote--YOU SEE? I have been trying to explain this since I got here! It's one reason I have been talking about PRIDE! Does it make sense now?
Pride, intellectual pride, spiritual pride--read my posts--it's all there! THIS is why I don't read things here on CI to LEARN THE FAITH, Lad. This Heiner guy is a perfect example, and he is not the only one! I cannot come to CI, because there are too many people here on CI with their "own" spin on too many things! (And of course CI is not the only place, as is obvious--This other site True Restoration is one of oodles!
THAT IS WHY I KEEP THINGS SIMPLE in what I read, and from where. Otherwise, all the Heiners of the world (and there are many) are a danger to my Faith, and not a help!
THAT IS WHY I KEEP THINGS SIMPLE in what I read, and from where. Otherwise, all the Heiners of the world (and there are many) are a danger to my Faith, and not a help!This is very wise Anne. It's something I've come to recognize as well over the past couple of years.
Well, I think it's much more subtle than simple intellectual pride.
Is it pride to say, "Our Lady was immaculately coceived" and then to defend this truth with everything you've got? No. That's not pride. That's humility because it's a submission to the teaching authority of the Church.
But the problem here is that Heiner has mistakenly lumped "Bergoglio is not the pope" into the same category as the Immaculate Conception, a truth of the faith known with the certainty of faith. If that WERE true, then his zeal in defending it would be understandable and not pride. I know this mindset because I was there at one point in my life. So when I speak of this "dark place" that Heiner's entering, I know from personal experience. It's almost palpable to me.
That's the same issue with the Dimond Brothers, not only with sedevacantism but Baptism of Desire. In both cases they've constructed a syllogism with a PREMISE that's certainly de fide, but then mistakenly believe that the conclusion is in that exact same category. THAT right there is their mistake.
We have to pray for the dogmatists because only the grace of God can break them out of this due to their false conviction that their positions are matters of faith. God snapped me out of this ... the HARD way. It was an incredibly painful time in my life.
That's why I emphasize the notion of theological notes. Any conclusion derived from a truth of faith by way of syllogism (apart from a basic "not" type of syllogism) has elements of human reasoning in it and therefore cannot have the same certainty as something defined explicitly by the Church. But it's hard for reason to shine into that dark state in which the Dimonds and now Heiner find themselves. They've been fooled by the devil, who has manipulated and used their zeal for the faith against them.
Let's take a simple example.
Major: the Church cannot teach heresy.
Minor: the Conciliar Church has taught heresy.
Conclusion: the Conciliar Church is not the Church.
This has proper logical form and is a correct conclusion. Indeed the Major is de fide. So the dogmatic SVs hold that the conclusion is also de fide. But where does the Minor come from? Has the Church defined this to be true? No. With as much moral certainty as we might have regarding the Minor, it simply CANNOT be de fide because WE came up with it with our own reason. But the principle of logic is that of the "weakest link principle" peiorem partem sequitur conclusio ... which means that the conclusion can be no more certain than ANY of the premises. Since the Minor premise above is not certain with the certainty of faith, neither can the conclusion.
That's the major flaw with Bishop Sanborn's condemnation of "opinionism". He fails to distinguish between the TYPES of certainty. While he may be morally and intellectually certain, the error is in raising the conclusion to having the certainty of faith. And, subtly, what that means is that you elevate your own judgment to a place of being effectively a "rule of faith". That in a nutshell is the problem with the dogmatism. But they are blinded to this and don't see it. So we need to pray for people who have been so afflicted due to this insidious corruption from the devil.
So the dogmatic SVs hold that the conclusion is also de fide. But where does the Minor come from? Has the Church defined this to be true? No. With as much moral certainty as we might have regarding the Minor, it simply CANNOT be de fide because WE came up with it with our own reason. But the principle of logic is that of the "weakest link principle" peiorem partem sequitur conclusio ... which means that the conclusion can be no more certain than ANY of the premises. Since the Minor premise above is not certain with the certainty of faith, neither can the conclusion.
The matter is very simple.
The Church cannot teach heresy in her official capacity and magisterium to the universal faithful.
This is false.
The certainty of faith is epistemologically certain because God revealed it (articles of faith). How do we know God revealed something?
The certainty of faith is only possible by reaching conclusions through the use of the mind.
This response proves my point. You've compressed the entire syllogism into a single proposition. But you're really only speaking of the MAJOR in the SV proposition (with which I wholeheartedly agree, BTW). I agree this this statement above is de fide. But then where is the rest of the argument?
MAJOR: The Church cannot teach heresy in her official capacity and magisterium to the universal faithful. (agreed, de fide)
MINOR: The Conciliar Church has taught heresy in an official capacity and in its magisterium.
CONCLUSION: Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.
I actually agree with this conclusion and have argued this myself. But here's the problem.
Look at the MINOR (which you've lost sight of due to your compression of the entire argument into it being a restatement of the Major alone). When did the Church teach this? Never, since the Church has been in eclipse since this whole thing started. We have arrived at this conclusion based on our private judgment.
Because the MINOR only has fallible private judgment behind it, the conclusion also depends on fallible and non-authoritative private judgment.
Ah, but the SV would respond: Vatican II was condemned by past Magisterium. No it wasn't, not explicitly. It is your contention and argument that the propositions in Vatican II contradict previous Magisterium, but the Church has not officially ruled on whether that was in fact the case. I've seen decent and plausible attempts to argue that the teachings of V2 can be interpreted in a way that's consistent with the previous Magisterium. I do not agree with that, but this is MY OPINION. I cannot bind consciences. I have no authority. Neither do you.
So you call this simple because you OVER-simplify it, compressing the entire argument into the Major alone. And then because the Major is in fact de fide, you falsely believe that the conclusion is also.
THIS here is the chief error of dogmatic SVism.
This is Protestantism, pure and simple. The certainty of faith is not based on conclusions that fallible humans reach through the use of their mind.
The way we know with infallibly certainty that a doctrine has been revealed by God, is because an infallible teacher has infallibly taught that the doctrine has been revealed by God.
The way we know with infallibly certainty that a doctrine has been revealed by God, is because an infallible teacher has infallibly taught that the doctrine has been revealed by God.
...
Everyone who attends mass at a Sedevacantist sect is, by definition, manifest heretic and notorious heretic.
MAJOR: The Church cannot teach heresy in her official capacity and magisterium to the universal faithful. (agreed, de fide)
MINOR: The Conciliar Church has taught heresy in an official capacity and in its magisterium.
CONCLUSION: Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.
This is a perfect example the ignorance of Sedevacantists, and the false conclusions they reach by the use of their private judgement.
Mr. Ladislaus, what is de fide (Dei Filius, Vatican I) is that a doctrine is infallibly propose by the ordinary and universal magisterium when 1) all the bishops of the world agree that 2) the doctrine in question is a revealed truth that must be assented to with divine and Catholic faith. The universality of the teaching alone does not suffice for it to be infallibly proposed; it must also be proposed definitively as revealed, for it to be infallible by the force of the ordinary and universal magisterium.
Interesting.
So how does a non-Catholic come to the belief that there is an infallible teacher that has infallibly taught a doctrine that was revealed by God?
This is a perfect example the ignorance of Sedevacantists, and the false conclusions they reach by the use of their private judgement.
Mr. Ladislaus, what is de fide (Dei Filius, Vatican I) is that a doctrine is infallibly propose by the ordinary and universal magisterium when 1) all the bishops of the world agree that 2) the doctrine in question is a revealed truth that must be assented to with divine and Catholic faith. The universality of the teaching alone does not suffice for it to be infallibly proposed; it must also be proposed definitively as revealed, for it to be infallible by the force of the ordinary and universal magisterium.
Two steps:
First, by examining the motives of credibility and arriving at the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. This can be achieved by the use of reason, and quite easily with the help of actual grace.
Second. By accepting that what the true Church teaches is true. Since the Church teaches that the magisterium is an infallible teacher, it follows that if the Church infallibly proposes a doctrine as having been revealed by God, the person will believe that the doctrine in question is revealed - and they will believe it, not based on their private judgment, but on the infallible authority of the infallible Church teaching.
That is how a non-Catholic comes to believe that there is an infallible teacher that has infallibly taught a doctrine that was revealed by God.
Two steps:
First, by examining the motives of credibility and arriving at the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. This can be achieved by the use of reason, and quite easily with the help of actual grace.
Second. By accepting that what the true Church teaches is true. Since the Church teaches that the magisterium is an infallible teacher, it follows that if the Church infallibly proposes a doctrine as having been revealed by God, the person will believe that the doctrine in question is revealed - and they will believe it, not based on their private judgment, but on the infallible authority of the infallible Church teaching.
That is how a non-Catholic comes to believe that there is an infallible teacher that has infallibly taught a doctrine that was revealed by God.
Here is RomanTheo’s “institution of salvation” in action:
This is absolutely correct. THIS is where private judgement has a legitimate role, in examining the motives of credibility.
So by the use of the mind, in other words?
The indefectibility of the Church is related to the de fide credenda dogma of the perpetuity of Papal succession defined in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church “Pastor aeternus.” The dogma of the indefectibility of the Church is moreover closely related to the doctrine of the permanence of the Church, and although it has not been proclaimed in an independent extraordinary decree of its own, it is considered a secondary object of the infallibility of this teaching, and as such, is a tenenda infallible teaching in its own right. The indefectibility of the Church is listed by Dr. Ludwig Ott as a sententia theologice certa (“theologically certain teaching” or Sent. certa.) dogma, meaning that it is a teaching that the Magisterium has definitively proposed. The dogma of the indefectibility of the Church has been summarized as follows: “The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world” (XIV).
It would not be possible for a Pope even in a non-infallible docuмent to teach HERESY.
I'm not sure why you wrote this in reply to my earlier post, but there are a few minor errors in what you wrote that I will clear up. First, permanence of the Church (which is an aspect of the Church's promise of indefectibility), is not a secondary object of infallibility. It is a primary object (a revealed truth - Mt 28:20)), and, even if it has not been solemnly defined by a single definitive act, it is certainly a truth that has been infallibly proposed by the force of the ordinary and universal magisterium.
A secondary object of infallibility is a truth that has not been revealed, but which is necessary to preserve the revealed deposit. The assent "tendendas" (to be held) is owed to secondary objects that have been definitively proposed. The assent owed to a primary object of infallibility that has been infallibly proposed by the ordinary and universal magisterium (such as the doctrine of the permanence of the Church) is that of divine and Catholic faith.
But since you agree that the perpetuity of papal succession is de fide, do you believe there as been perpetual successors of Peter up to the present day, or do you believe the last Pope died 65 years ago?
But since you agree that the perpetuity of papal succession is de fide, do you believe there as been perpetual successors of Peter up to the present day, or do you believe the last Pope died 65 years ago?
This is absolutely correct. THIS is where private judgement has a legitimate role, in examining the motives of credibility. Traditional Catholics look at the Conciliar counterfeit Church and recognize that it lacks the Marks or Notes of the One True Church found by Christ.
Two points. First, show me where the Church has ever taught that such a thing is impossible. I'm not asking for the opinion of a theologian, such as Franzelin, but where has the magisterium has ever taught that a Pope cannot teach heresy in a non-infallible docuмent.
Second, show me where any of the recent Popes have taught heresy (not an error, but heresy) as an act of their ordinary magisterium. And be sure to quote the dogma that the alleged heresy directly contradicts. Good luck.
I believe that the last pope died in 1989 (about 33 years ago).
Interesting that the Protestants arrived at the same conclusion about the Roman Catholic Church after the Council of Trent. They maintained that the Church post-Trent was a New Church that taught a New Religion, just like the Sedevacantist heretics believe the Church post-Vatican II is a New Church that teaches a New Religion. There is another parallel between the Protestants and Sedevacantists.
If the Roman Catholic Church - i.e., the Church of Rome and all the particular churches throughout the world in union with it - lacks the four marks, where is the infallible, indefectible Church with four marks, outside of which there is no salvation?
I've been asking Sedevacantist heretics this question for years, and all I ever get in reply is a blank stare.
Mystici Corporis Christi: "69. Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws. Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end."
So much for the Siri Theory. Moreover, how could Siri have been the Pope when he remained a member of the "Vatican II sect" that you claim lacks the four marks? How can the member of a false Church be the Pope of the true Church?
Mystici Corporis Christi: "69. Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws. Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end."
So much for the Siri Theory. Moreover, how could Siri have been the Pope when he remained a member of the "Vatican II sect" that you claim lacks the four marks? How can the member of a false Church be the Pope of the true Church?
Can you explain how the Roman Pontiff was visible to the eyes of all during the Great Western Schism? How did the American Indians see the Pope with their eyes before Columbus sailed westward? Is Francis visible to the North Sentinelese? Perhaps he means visible to all of the Elect (and what does that mean for those who are saved by pseudo-Pelagian implicit desire)? So many questions.
Clearly, "visible to all" must be interpreted differently than to how you have done so.
We do not apply our "reason" to judge individual teachings of that authority.
Galatians 1:7-8[8] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=55&ch=1&l=8-#x) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.Sed licet nos aut angelus de caelo evangelizet vobis praeterquam quod evangelizavimus vobis, anathema sit.
[9] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=55&ch=1&l=9-#x) As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
Sicut praediximus, et nunc iterum dico : si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter id quod accepistis, anathema sit.
I agree with RomanTheo. There is visibility today in the material structures of the Church. But what is it that is visible? Nothing but heresy, blasphemy, impiety, sacrilege, destruction, sin, and scandal.
This is the visibility of iniquity; not holiness.
I agree with RomanTheo. There is visibility today in the material structures of the Church. But what is it that is visible? Nothing but heresy, blasphemy, impiety, sacrilege, destruction, sin, and scandal.
This is the visibility of iniquity; not holiness.
I agree with RomanTheo. There is visibility today in the material structures of the Church. But what is it that is visible? Nothing but heresy, blasphemy, impiety, sacrilege, destruction, sin, and scandal.
This is the visibility of iniquity; not holiness.
How do you know that there's no holiness at all in the visible and material structure of the church? The negative elements that you describe above do exist, but can you be quite sure that nothing of the Catholic Faith remains?
Interesting.
So how does a non-Catholic come to the belief that there is an infallible teacher that has infallibly taught a doctrine that was revealed by God?
Subjective personal taste? Coercion? “Feelings” of the Holy Spirit communicating?
How do you know that there's no holiness at all in the visible and material structure of the church? The negative elements that you describe above do exist, but can you be quite sure that nothing of the Catholic Faith remains?
Grace.
Communicatio in Sacris/Divinis with heretics and/or schismatics is heresy. Those in the material structures of the Church are heretics for either a) being heretics themselves or b) for being in Communion with heretics.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#9): “No one who merely disbelieves in all can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic.”
III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into…the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”
2 John
[9] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=70&ch=1&l=9-#x) Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.
Omnis qui recedit, et non permanet in doctrina Christi, Deum non habet : qui permanet in doctrina, hic et Patrem et Filium habet.[10] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=70&ch=1&l=10-#x) If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.Si quis venit ad vos, et hanc doctrinam non affert, nolite recipere eum in domum, nec Ave ei dixeritis.
[11] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=70&ch=1&l=11-#x) For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.
Qui enim dicit illi Ave, communicat operibus ejus malignis.
[9] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=70&ch=1&l=9-#x) Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.
Omnis qui recedit, et non permanet in doctrina Christi, Deum non habet : qui permanet in doctrina, hic et Patrem et Filium habet.[10] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=70&ch=1&l=10-#x) If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.Si quis venit ad vos, et hanc doctrinam non affert, nolite recipere eum in domum, nec Ave ei dixeritis.
[11] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=70&ch=1&l=11-#x) For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.
Qui enim dicit illi Ave, communicat operibus ejus malignis.
http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/70001.htm
Communicatio in Sacris/Divinis with heretics and/or schismatics is heresy. Those in the material structures of the Church are heretics for either a) being heretics themselves or b) for being in Communion with heretics.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#9): “No one who merely disbelieves in all can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic.”
III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into…the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”
Agreed. Honestly, it goes to show the absolute importance of having an orthodox (or valid, depending on your position) Pope.Never fear. Jupiter is here.
So, in your opinion, it does not really matter if any holiness still exists in the conciliar church, since heretics reign there, and we can't be in communion with heretics? I'm just trying to clarify your position.
The universality of the teaching alone does not suffice for it to be infallibly proposed; it must also be proposed definitively as revealed, for it to be infallible by the force of the ordinary and universal magisterium.
Never fear. Jupiter is here.(https://media.tenor.co/images/6da6e563530b67bc743f6831e1656f11/raw)
Grace is a part of it, but not the primary vehicle. The mind must consent to the Grace that is given or Grace is useless.
The Protestant believes himself to have “Grace” as the Catholic does. Who actually has Grace?
The intellect must determine. Not “feelings” or “sentimentalisms.”
See, it's OK for YOU to "interpret" papal teaching and then declare your conclusions dogmatic, but not for the sedevacantists, eh? This is talking about the ESSENTIAL perpetuity and visibility of the Holy See.
We know that a prolonged vacancy of the Holy See is possible, and that too contradicts your interpretation of this teaching.
As for your second issue, I've repeatedly argued that there can be and are people who are formally Catholic who are nevertheless materially divided due to the Crisis. This is the second time now that you've straw-manned me with the arguments of the dogmatic sedevacantists, which I have consistently opposed. In fact, I argue that there are some bishops in the Church who continue to exercise ordinary jurisdiction.
There are certainly those within the Conciliar Church who still formally possess the faith but are materially separated. During the Great Western Schism we had (canonized) saints on all sides who were nevertheless formally united. But this does not mean that the institution of the Conciliar Church itself is materially and objectively the Catholic Church ... any more than it meant that all the popes who had Catholic followers during the Great Western Schism were legitimate.
Grace is most assuredly the primary vehicle and the starting point: Without it, man cannot assent to the supernatural truths of revelation.
The fact that Protestants can be deluded is as irrelevant to that article of faith, as that men can refuse it.
The longest vacancy of the Holy See has been less than three years, and the episcopate remained one and the same moral body during the interregnum. And no sane person would claim that the Holy See has been vacant since '89 or '58, nor is that what the insane Sedevacantists are really claiming. They are claiming that a series of false Pope have been reigning in the Holy See for over 60 years, and that the entire episcopate has recognized them as the legitimate Popes the entire time. That is a denial of the indefectibility of the Church.
It is the starting point, but not the vehicle.
The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. vi, and can. xii) decrees that not the fiduciary faith, but a real mental act of faith, consisting of a firm belief in all revealed truths makes up the faith of justification and the "beginning, foundation, and source" (loc. cit., cap. viii) of justification.
“The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.”
The fact that people can be deluded in matters of faith or outright reject Grace is known to man by faith which is known by his mind and ability to reason which is the most relevant part of this discussion.
On Trent, we are agreed.
And if you accept grace, rather than reason, as the starting point to accepting supernatural faith (something your words in the post I initially responded to seemed to reject), then we have no disagreement.
The longest vacancy of the Holy See has been less than three years, ...
On Trent, we are agreed.
And if you accept grace, rather than reason, as the starting point to accepting supernatural faith (something your words in the post I initially responded to seemed to reject), then we have no disagreement.
I thought you were suggesting man can reason his way to the Faith, but in light of your subsequent explanations, I see that you were not.
This is not an opinion. It is a matter of fact that heretics reign in the material structures of the Church and where there is heresy there is no holiness, regardless of appearances. The Arians were known for their penances, prayers, zeal, and good works but it availed them for naught since they had no faith on account of their one single heresy.
Also, yes, madame, a Catholic cannot be in communion with a heretic by divine law.
I'm not so sure that the Arians were known for their holiness. They were a violent lot, and often ruled through violence and intimidation. But still it was not ever thought that Rome was not where the True Church was, even though it was for the most part occupied by Arians (except for the Pope).
You have absolutely no theologian that supports your case while we have the following:
A. Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis [1929], Rev. A. Dorsch
— “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet].”
I believe that the last pope died in 1989 (about 33 years ago).Oh dear God, help me, please. How many people are claiming to be Pope? :confused: What is the name of this supposed pope that died about 33 years ago? Was he in Rome?
Oh dear God, help me, please. How many people are claiming to be Pope? :confused: What is the name of this supposed pope that died about 33 years ago? Was he in Rome?
Are you part of the Schuckardt (sp?) crowd in Spokane, WA?
Are you part of the group in Kansas that has their own "Pope?" (The guy in his basement--I think he called or calls himself "Pope Michael?"
Are you part of the Old Catholic cult?
Are you in the Palmar De Troya crowd?
Are you part of the group in Quebec that has now branched off into the US, but they claim their own "Pope?"
Are you part of the sub-group of Little Pebble cult--that goes along with
something else?
I have had friends mixed-up with all of these groups, except the first one of the 33 years ago "Pope." That's a new one for me.
Sorry, but I cannot wrap my head around this Lad. I cannot.
I have done my best to understand where you are coming from, but I don't think there is much hope for that.
You are telling me that I need new Priests? I don't think so. I think they are the only ones keeping me from going off the deep end into leaving the Catholic Church and following the church of anyone that sets themselves up to be Pope just because they are convinced they are the ones with the "correct answer."
Hi, you must be new here? Welcome, if so. Cool name, btw, and now I have "drops of Jupiter" running through my head, lol. Anyway...good luck here, you will need it. There are lots of people here that have beliefs way beyond my Baltimore and Penny Catechisms. They make no sense to me whatsoever, and maybe might explain why so many Traditional Catholics that I have met over the years have ended up having complete and total mental breakdowns. That, or they end up losing their Faith entirely, or both.
Ladislaus was referring to the Cardinal Siri thesis. It is a false theory for many reasons which go beyond what I care to discuss in this thread, but you can read about it here:
http://www.thepopeinred.com
I may or may not be back during or after my recovery. I am fed up with this place and I now HATE SOCIAL MEDIA, including forums like this. I cannot compete with people that are more tech-savy than I am to figure it all out, and it keeps getting more and more complicated, not easier.
Anne, I thought you hated social media and especially this place? Why are you back? I thought you had a learning disability, why even look at a debate about the Pope question?Because Anne said she came here as penance, remember? She has to help the poor, stupid misinformed trads by mocking and insulting them constantly..it is the only way to awaken them from their errors
Also, nice that he needs to cite Bp. Sanborn's other novelty: "opinionism". Condemning any and all theological opinions that go against the party line of his sedevacantist group.But isn't that the whole point of Heiner's editorial? I haven't read the whole thread yet so maybe someone else has already said this but the only new thing about this editorial is the condemnation of CMRI, not because their Masses are una cuм but because their clergy don't bar una cuм people from the sacraments. I go to a CMRI church so I know that they don't recommend una cuм Masses. They just don't punish those who do go to una cuм Masses. So if we compare it to the St Hypatius vs Nestorius event, Bishop Sanborn would not only break communion with Nestorius the heretic but also with Eulalius who failed to break communion with Nestorius until a decision from Rome. And now it seems that maybe Bishop Sanborn would break communion with St Hypatius too! For not condemning Eulalius as well. Bishop Sanborn is going off the rails. Sad to see it. I hope they will reconsider.
Never fear. Jupiter is here.Yes, I laughed when a friend referred to Heiner as Pope Heiner.
Anne, I thought you hated social media and especially this place? Why are you back? I thought you had a learning disability, why even look at a debate about the Pope question?I do. There is no place to go read Catholic articles and things without the stupid comment sections!!
I have been noticing that there is NO Catholic site free from: Priest bashing, Pope bashing, name-calling, criticizing people, and so-on. There are definite themes happening.
I do. There is no place to go read Catholic articles and things without the stupid comment sections!!
It doesn't matter if it's Church Militant, Life Site, Catholic News Agency, From Rome, GAB, Twitter, CI here, and a whole bunch of other websites that I have looked at with supposedly Catholic threads/pages/content. I have been looking off and on for 2 years now, and each of these places has their own group of regular posters that comment on different things.
I have been noticing that there is NO Catholic site free from: Priest bashing, Pope bashing, name-calling, criticizing people, and so-on. There are definite themes happening.
This place, I thought while lurking, would be one of the better places to join in to help ease some of the isolation. But once I joined? I quickly realized that it was actually not so great. In fact, it is probably the WORST, if I had to rank them all, based on what I have read--and I am only a member here and nowhere else.
I underestimated how many people here actually are Sedevacantists. They either come right out and say it, or they dig/poke me, and not-so-subtly, but the long and the short of it is, they are vicious about it. They don't like me because I am not one of them. I have tried to figure out a few things, but at the end of the day, Sedevacantists make no sense to me, and that is why I get attacked so much. Do I get angry? YES. It's usually because I have been attacked so much for either not being in their "club" or "group," or because I have honestly tried to keep up with many of the threads here and I cannot.
Why am I back again? Duh, obviously I am a sucker for punishment, or determined, or both, and plus, I keep getting mail. One of these days I will be able to figure out my thoughts to reply to those inbox messages here, but yes, I do have a learning disability, and that's not going away. Part of it affects my ability to focus and concentrate, so I get distracted easily sometimes. The more people that jump on me at once, the worse it gets, and the more frustrated I get.
Actually, when I got on this topic, I didn't realize it was a Pope thread exactly. But a couple of people suggested that I read more, and I laughed, but then I figured that I would just get out my missal and go from there.
So here you go: In my missal, In the Prayers before the Consecration, the opening prayer in the Canon of the Mass is the Te Igitur. Near the bottom of that prayer is where the prayer for the Pope comes in: "Una cuм..."
Me and my understanding and the Masses I attend: Insert name of Pope Francis and Bishop in charge of area.
Possible Sedevacantist: Skip that whole part, insert name of deceased Pope, insert name of living "Pope" of some group, insert name of some Bishop of choice or in charge of group. I don't know what other possible scenarios that I can think of, but anyway...
Good Friday: The Great Intercessions: PUBLIC PRAYERS.
1) For Holy Church
2) For the Supreme Pontiff
3) For all Orders and Grades of the Faithful
4) For those Engaged in Public Affairs
5) For Catechumens
6) For the Needs of the Faithful
7) For Heretics and Schismatics
8) For Conversion of the Jєωs
9) For Conversion of Unbelievers
If a person is a Sede vacantist, then they would skip 2, or else somehow add in some name of some other supposed living "Pope" or I don't know, pick an old one that has died?
If they skip it, then do they add in Pope Francis into 7 and 9, or just 7?
So not only do I not belong, but I don't even follow the same missal. Or if we share the same missal, then Priests are just making up their own Mass stuff for the Canon, or altering it, and the same goes for Good Friday.
So if this is going on, then how are Sede Vacantists any different that SOME "innovative" Novus Ordo Priests that add or alter Parts of the Mass? They aren't if you ask me.
So now here's Anne finding herself on this website where it seems there are exponentially more Sede Vacantists openly claiming it, or else if not openly claiming it, holding that view and somehow going to a Mass where the Pope is still prayed for?
WEIRD. It makes NO sense to me. If you have no Pope, then you have no visible head of the Church. If you make stuff up or alter it in the Canon of the Mass, then I would say that Mass is not valid.
So I don't fit in here because I believe Pope Francis is the Pope, and there's not much that I can do about it, except continue to pray God's will be done, and to pray for Pope Francis.
So actually, the advice that I think it was Meg gave, and Nadir earlier, a long time ago, was to read more, and post less or something, that was Nadir, I think. I don't know exactly but I think it was those two ladies. Anyway, I just picked up missal and it's all there. It's not hard to figure out if I keep it simple like I do. If I try to complicate things, or read some heavy-duty obscure stuff, it makes me MORE confused, and not less, and I get more frustrated and the likes.
And here, when people gang up on one person? It's basically like psychological gang-rape, believe it or not. If people are not actively partaking, then there are many others on the sidelines cheering/egging on.
It's the same disgusting situation when there is a person on a bridge and they are considering jumping to end their life. Cars driving by or people walking by will egg the person on by yelling, "Jump!" It's no different. The principle is the same. That's why they always shut down bridges and call them "Police Incidents." They don't want the person to be bullied or peer-pressured into jumping.
Here then, I am really NOT amongst my "peers" if you will. I am like the jumper on the bridge, and people are pretty much telling me, with few exceptions to jump. "We hate your guts, Anne, JUMP!" "We hate your guts, Anne, don't come back!" "We are better than you, Anne!" "You SUCK, Anne!"
I see no difference. I found myself amongst a bunch of losers doing exactly this, and I found myself turning and doing some of the same things to retaliate at times towards others. It's awful, wrong, and I don't want to be like that! This place has brought out the WORST in me, and so I took some steps back to figure out why, where it happened, and how, and what to do about it, (if I could do anything), etc.
I came to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that I will change anyone's opinions of many things here, because there are so many people and so many topics that the exponential numbers of possibilities is more math than my brain can handle. But what I CAN DO, is return to being the person that usually helps the jumper off the bridge, instead of finding myself caught up in a group where too many people think it's okay to tell someone to jump. In this case, me.
That's kind of the best comparison I can come up with in my head. And if this site is bad for the things that I have mentioned, then that's more scary still, because 1) Everyone here is supposed to be Catholic and 2), There are no other sites left for me to go where I won't run into this same kind of stuff I already listed above with the Priest bashing, name-calling, fighting, and so on.
It's very sad. The pressure of group think is enormous, and the pressure to "outcast" or shun those that don't conform is also enormous. I am usually the only one going against a group or a crowd, so-to-speak in many cases, and when I got here, I found myself getting into group attack mode, and that's not right. Not at all.
There are Resistance People here, but I am finding out there are issues there, too, and some of them are actually kind of similar to the Sede Vacantists. The way I understand it in my brain, is that the Resistance is one step away from being Sede Vacantist, to keep it simple. So that in itself, also has me wondering what other dangers are lurking if I try to explore that further.
When I said to you the other day about going around and around on your hamster wheels? It's true, because I couldn't see how any of the Sede Vacantist stuff made sense, or how people can go to Good Friday and not pray for the Supreme Pontiff, etc.
To me, you have to be Inside the Catholic Church, and I just don't see how that is possible as a Sede Vacantist. I am no theologian or anything, or Priest, and my Catechism was interrupted and I only had spits and spats mostly, but I listen to the Sermons and read simple Saints Stories and articles that are things I can put down and take up again later. Here? This is more like rapid-response, or else the number of people gets prohibitive, and I can't respond to hundreds of people. I have done my very best to reply to those that have been patient and kind enough to put up with me, or to answer back to threads.
God bless, Anne.
P.S. It makes a lot more sense now, too, if people have been here awhile, they have also probably held their views as long. If a new person comes along, there will be pressure put on that new person to slot themselves into a BOX, or else be slotted into one or more BOXES. There is more likelihood that the group will pressure to conform.
Matthew 24:16-22
And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come. When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains: And he that is on the housetop, let him not come down to take any thing out of his house: And he that is in the field, let him not go back to take his coat. [19] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=24&l=19-#x) And woe to them that are with child, and that give suck in those days. But pray that your flight be not in the winter, or on the sabbath. For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened.
“Protestantism” preceded the Council of Trent and claimed that the RC Church was corrupt and taught new doctrines prior to Trent. This is demonstrably false. All of the doctrines taught in the Medieval period as well as at the time of Trent can be shown to have direct continuity with the Early Church.Given other comments by Jupiter, I found this comment surprising. I'm not sure I understand his "position". On the one hand he says there hasn't been a pope since Pius XII, but then he says V2 is Catholic.
Secondly, Vatican II is not the problem. This council can be interpreted in light of Tradition. But it’s not interpreted in light of Tradition and has not been for the past ~60 years. There is clear discontinuity in interpretation and teaching by the post Vatican II magisterium.
Where was the RCC during the Arian crisis? The Great Western Schism? With its four marks and visibility?
Given other comments by Jupiter, I found this comment surprising. I'm not sure I understand his "position". On the one hand he says there hasn't been a pope since Pius XII, but then he says V2 is Catholic.
John 10:1 Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=1-1&q=1#x)
It seems to me that he thinks they are not true shepherds because they are not interpreting and teaching Vatican II as they should have. He would believe a post Vatican II pope would be valid and legit if only he were to teach Vatican II the way it "should be" taught.
Though they are not true shepherds, they enter the same sheepfold:
(http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=1-1&q=1#x)I believe Jupiter is talking about the sheepfold, and the false shepherd who nonetheless is identifiable as shepherd (though it's a masquerade in a real sense - hence the conclusion of the Sedes) of the one sheepfold.
It's a mystery that we cannot really boil down to absolute facts. The conciliar church isn't exactly the True Church, but it's not completely separate either.Although I believe it can be done, I don't believe we lay people are meant to boil it *all* down to absolute facts.
As +ABL said, the modernists and conciliar church occupy the True Church. No one is required to believe this here, but some of us do. In this situation, we have to assume that the True Church is still in Rome, but currently occupied. But what does occupation mean?
I do not think that Vatican II is a valid ecuмenical council of the Roman Catholic Church.No, it's not ambiguous. And if it's just ambiguous then why can't it be a valid ecuмenical council of the Church? Pseudo pope Benedict XVI said it could be interpreted in the light of Tradition too.
That being said, as I mentioned in my response to RomanTheo, the primary issue of our current crisis is not Vatican II. This council can be interpreted in a way, commensurate to the machinations that gave birth to it, that is in continuity with Tradition due to the very ambiguous nature of its docuмents which were engineered to create weaponized nebulosity.
The primary issue, rather, is that the post Vatican II “Popes,” ecclesiastical hierarchy, theologians, monastic orders, and the vast majority of the laity have apostatized completely from the Catholic faith.
No, it's not ambiguous. And if it's just ambiguous then why can't it be a valid ecuмenical council of the Church? Pseudo pope Benedict XVI said it could be interpreted in the light of Tradition too.
Kindly read Alberigo’s 5 Volume History of Vatican II alongside the entirety of the docuмents of Vatican II and their official Latin Relatio then come back and we can discuss this more fruitfully.
Benedict XVI’s hermeneutic of continuity is an abstract intellectual exercise removed from the realities of the situation, not due to the docuмents of the council per se, but due to the post-conciliar ecclesiastical situation.
:laugh2: In the real world this is called a Jackass Response. Jupiter: another pseudo-intellectual tool-bag.
Jupiter, what sedevacantist group do you align with? Where do you assist at mass ... not actual location, but group....? Or do you stay home? Because I have never known a sedevacantist to hold the views you hold regarding Vatican II.
I hold to the Cassiciacuм Thesis as the best explanation for the ecclesiastical question. However, due to my views on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and Communicatio in Sacris, I am not able to attend Mass at any chapel so I am a “home aloner” as some people would describe it.So because of your extreme interpretation and application of the two, you cut yourself off from otherwise valid sacraments? I would say that's imprudent.
So because of your extreme interpretation and application of the two, you cut yourself off from otherwise valid sacraments? I would say that's imprudent.
…The longest vacancy of the Holy See has been less than three years, and the episcopate remained one and the same moral body during the interregnum. And no sane person would claim that the Holy See has been vacant since '89 or '58, nor is that what the insane Sedevacantists are really claiming. They are claiming that a series of false Pope have been reigning in the Holy See for over 60 years, and that the entire episcopate has recognized them as the legitimate Popes the entire time. That is a denial of the indefectibility of the Church.…
Although I believe it can be done, I don't believe we lay people are meant to boil it *all* down to absolute facts.
It should be enough for us to know that the conciliar religion is not only not Catholic, it is anti-Catholic, this cannot be denied. Knowing this, is knowing that we should avoid everything that has anything to do with it. The reason so many choose to disbelieve that which they cannot deny, is due to their lack of conviction as a result of a lack of faith.
+ABL was right, the modernists and conciliar church do occupy the True Church, Fr. Wathen puts it like this:
"...the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column. Hence, no one who
maintains membership within it can be saved..."
What is a "fifth column?"
Wiki puts it like this:
"A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Forces gathered in secret can mobilize openly to assist an external attack." - describes the situation accurately imo.
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]
Fr. Wathen puts it like this:
"...the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column. Hence, no one who
maintains membership within it can be saved..."
Yes. The sacraments are indeed valid, but the Sedevacantist priests dispensing them are heretics for rejecting dogmas, nay even waging war on dogmas, of the Church. Bishop Sanborn’s views on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and Natural Family Planning makes his group an impossible choice for me otherwise I am most well disposed to his group’s otherwise phenomenal work. They are especially to be commended on their correct understanding of Communicatio in Sacris and their torch bearing of the late Bishop Guerard des Lauriers’ Cassiciacuм Thesis.But you don't belong to the Church of Sanborn, you belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.
Yes. The sacraments are indeed valid, but the Sedevacantist priests dispensing them are heretics for rejecting dogmas, nay even waging war on dogmas, of the Church. Bishop Sanborn’s views on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and Natural Family Planning makes his group an impossible choice for me otherwise I am most well disposed to his group’s otherwise phenomenal work. They are especially to be commended on their correct understanding of Communicatio in Sacris and their torch bearing of the late Bishop Guerard des Lauriers’ Cassiciacuм Thesis.I am not a theologian. In any way, shape or form.
I agree that lay folk cannot boil it all down to absolute facts (the Crisis, that is). But I'm not convinced that Catholic clergy can absolutely boil everything down either. As far as I recall (and I could be wrong), +ABL did not believe that he had all of the answers.I am pretty sure the crisis can be boiled down to facts, but such a thing should be done and has, to a large extent, been done by learned priests, by those who've been commissioned and whose job it is to explain it to the sheep - Fr. Hesse is one, Fr. Wathen is another.
Perhaps Fr. Wathen believed that he did have all of the answers to the Crisis. For instance, you quoted him as believing that no one who maintains membership in the conciliar church can be saved. I don't recall that +ABL ever said that no one who maintains membership in the conciliar church can be saved. Since he was quite humble and knew his limitations, he did not condemn all who were members in the conciliar church. As he said many times - the Crisis is a mystery. Even though he knew full-well the problems with the conciliar church.
But you don't belong to the Church of Sanborn, you belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.Kind of sounds neo-donatist if you ask me.
Why reject receiving Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament because of a frail imperfect human albeit a priest?
I can't seem to get past that with home aloners. What am I missing?
But you don't belong to the Church of Sanborn, you belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.Actually, most home aloners that I have come in contact with online have a different take than Jupiter. They believe that since there has been no papal mandate, then all of these traditional masses are illicit and mortally sinful to assist. Quite honestly, I have never come across Jupiter's position wrt Vatican II nor home-aloneism in all the years I have been taking part in trad fora.
Why reject receiving Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament because of a frail imperfect human albeit a priest?
I can't seem to get past that with home aloners. What am I missing?
So, IF the Conciliar Church is within the Catholic Church...Yep, they're within it like a fifth column, all part of the fifth column. Don't forget that part or you'll not understand Fr. Wathen's "logic" and "ecclesiology" and end up disbelieving that which you cannot deny.
...THEN any and all members of the Conciliar Church are within the Catholic Church.
Such a conclusion is absolutely necessary and unavoidable, at least according to Fr. Wathen's "logic" and "ecclesiology."
I am pretty sure the crisis can be boiled down to facts, but such a thing should be done and has, to a large extent, been done by learned priests, by those who've been commissioned and whose job it is to explain it to the sheep - Fr. Hesse is one, Fr. Wathen is another.
And there are a handful of others I could name who were around for the start of the revolution and answered many of the exact same questions and concerns decades ago that many folks still have today. I just figure, folks didn't listen then and still wont listen even today, which helps explain why many are still asking many of the same questions 60 years later.
+ABL, like most (not all) back then (and still even today) disbelieved that which they could not deny, which helps explain why +ABL never said what Fr. Wathen correctly said. Personally, I am of the opinion that +ABL very well could be a saint in heaven right now, but he made some mistakes - one of which was being weak on EENS which to some extent at least, shows in his SSPX to this day.
Anyway, our use of reason asks - why the fifth column at all if not to deceive the people into a false religion with sacrilegious worship - which is undeniably happening - if not to lead the people toward hell?
I am under no illusion that this will be received in the same, kind spirit with which I write. So be it. I pray that it is.I read your response with no feeling whatsoever. I am perfectly capable of taking emotions out of any equation and simply using my brain (er logic), so thanks for your post, and be chill. It's all good, and I am perfectly capable of walking away or not logging in. There is no addiction or need for validation from anybody, and life will go on whether I choose to spend time here or not. For some people of a certain age-bracket, perhaps, THIS IS their only "outlet." And if that is the case for some people, I can show empathy towards them to some degree. So I understand that and am not knocking them for that, per se. Loneliness tends to intensify as a person ages, and that is a fact of life as friends and loved ones die off, mobility decreases, and so on.
Your response seems to reveal that you might be wiser to learn a good deal more about the different responses to the unprecedented crisis regarding Holy Church if you desire to wisely and profitably contribute to specific discussions. It is always helpful to understand one's opponents, if you will, as thoroughly as possible.
You might also refrain from being surprised (dare I say feigning surprise?) that most human beings are somewhat-less-than perfect. Your skin seems rather thin at times, which can also make life around here (or anywhere and everywhere in this world) uncomfortable.
I know, the problem is everyone else; it always is, ins't it? [FWIW, a good many priests in these evil days absolutely deserve to be bashed and worse. We are not in this situation because modern clerics are doing a wonderful job.]
Jupiter, what sedevacantist group do you align with? Where do you assist at mass ... not actual location, but group....? Or do you stay home? Because I have never known a sedevacantist to hold the views you hold regarding Vatican II.See, what "group do you align with?" Exactly what I have been saying. Every new person here has to be slotted into some box or category so the rest of the group can approve or not and therefore bash accordingly.
See, what "group do you align with?" Exactly what I have been saying. Every new person here has to be slotted into some box or category so the rest of the group can approve or not and therefore bash accordingly.No judgement from me. I was just trying to figure out where Jupiter stood on the Crisis. If you would spend the time learning about the various positions, you'd understand why I asked him that question. You may have noticed that he didn't feel judged. But thanks for judging me, Anne. Just remember when you point one finger, there are three pointing at you.
Btw, since you are on this thread and I am thinking of it, there is irony in the fact that you are trying to judge people by classifying them. But please keep in mind, that I am quite certain there is at least one member here (obviously not me) that would still consider you a Jєω, even if you have converted to the Catholic Faith. In other words, if you were to walk down the street, they would judge you by appearances alone based on your phenotype. No, they don't have your DNA, thanks God, but that would not stop them from possibly doing harm to you.
Just go back and read some of the trash threads here and see the absolute HATRED for Jєωιѕн people. It is not hard to figure out.
So please keep yourself safe down there in the CRAZY White-Nationalist-White-Supremacist USA, and keep your wits about you. There ARE people going around the Internet taking notes about ALL Jєωιѕн persons with the intentions of doing harm, or making their lives miserable.
If you don't want to be judged, stop judging others. You may have converted to the Catholic Faith (which is awesome), but some people are still blind and would see you as a Jєω. They only consider the White Race as superior. Blacks and Jєωs (or any other ethnicity) don't cut it.
Learn self-defense, carry pepper spray or whatever, but just recognize the harsh reality. God bless you, Anne
P.S. And it's okay if you were "done with me" before. I forgive you. Gotta go for now.
Anyway, I am not here to come up with reasons why people remain here for years on end. Which is kind of funny, because people of a certain age will know and understand and very well remember what people did BEFORE the Internet--we wrote letters, had pen-pals we would never usually meet, sent cards, used rotary telephones, and sat on the porch and talked with neighbours, and kids played hockey in the street and yelled, "Car!" Ah, the good old days. Anyway...
I remember rotary telephones. Are you old enough to have ever used one on a regular basis? Just wonderin'.Get off my lawn! :laugh1:
Get off my lawn! :laugh1:
Get off my lawn! :laugh1:(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/M94Ppvf/giphy.webp)
(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/M94Ppvf/giphy.webp)I am puzzled by the lack of decorum of this Anne person. She has done some major derailing on several threads here.
Never before have I seen someone hate a particular forum so much, but continue to use it daily. :facepalm:
I do not think that Vatican II is a valid ecuмenical council of the Roman Catholic Church.
That being said, as I mentioned in my response to RomanTheo, the primary issue of our current crisis is not Vatican II. This council can be interpreted in a way, commensurate to the machinations that gave birth to it, that is in continuity with Tradition due to the very ambiguous nature of its docuмents which were engineered to create weaponized nebulosity.
The primary issue, rather, is that the post Vatican II “Popes,” ecclesiastical hierarchy, theologians, monastic orders, and the vast majority of the laity have apostatized completely from the Catholic faith.
You don't think its a problem that several thousand bishops whose primary duty is to teach and spread the faith signed off on a docuмent containing multiple condemned heresies?
Seems to me that any bishop who signed off on Vatican became excommunicated when they signed off on heresy. I mean it contains blatant condemned heresies and the job of a bishop is to know and teach the faith, I don't see how they get much wiggle room with the "well i didn't know" defense.
See, what "group do you align with?" Exactly what I have been saying. Every new person here has to be slotted into some box or category so the rest of the group can approve or not and therefore bash accordingly.You have a tendency to invent problems so you can then denounce them and make yourself out to be a champion: ALL THESE PRIEST BASHERS, SO MUCH GOSSIP HERE (hilarious irony in this one as you yourself were the chief gossiper in that thread), WHITE SUPREMACIST RACISTS, JEW HATERS, SO MUCH JUDGEMENT (she judged)
Btw, since you are on this thread and I am thinking of it, there is irony in the fact that you are trying to judge people by classifying them. But please keep in mind, that I am quite certain there is at least one member here (obviously not me) that would still consider you a Jєω, even if you have converted to the Catholic Faith. In other words, if you were to walk down the street, they would judge you by appearances alone based on your phenotype. No, they don't have your DNA, thanks God, but that would not stop them from possibly doing harm to you.
Just go back and read some of the trash threads here and see the absolute HATRED for Jєωιѕн people. It is not hard to figure out.
So please keep yourself safe down there in the CRAZY White-Nationalist-White-Supremacist USA, and keep your wits about you. There ARE people going around the Internet taking notes about ALL Jєωιѕн persons with the intentions of doing harm, or making their lives miserable.
If you don't want to be judged, stop judging others. You may have converted to the Catholic Faith (which is awesome), but some people are still blind and would see you as a Jєω. They only consider the White Race as superior. Blacks and Jєωs (or any other ethnicity) don't cut it.
Learn self-defense, carry pepper spray or whatever, but just recognize the harsh reality. God bless you, Anne
P.S. And it's okay if you were "done with me" before. I forgive you. Gotta go for now.
I think most Bishops were fooled because of the ambiguity of the wording in most of the docuмents. Even Archbishop Lefebvre signed.
I remember rotary telephones. Are you old enough to have ever used one on a regular basis? Just wonderin'.Things I remember:
Actually, you fail to see, or understand the problem.
My apologies to Jupiter for disrupting the thread, but it hopefully it will be short-lived.Well, given the thread was originally about Heiner and the CMRI, I think it went off-topic quite awhile ago.
I am puzzled by the lack of decorum of this Anne person. She has done some major derailing on several threads here.Finally someone said it. I hope she doesn't do it in real life.
I’ve been familiar with reading forums for a decade or two, but I have never experienced someone constantly interjecting themselves into others conversations just to tell them what they think of their discussions, and what they think of them personally, or as a group.
Who does this?
I would never in a million years walk into a room where people were discussing a topic just to sling around my opinions at everyone. Especially when it is a serious topic like on this particular thread.
Instead, I might ask a few questions, go and study, ask a few more perhaps? Maybe add some knowledge I possess on the topic.
It just doesn’t make sense to to do it any other way. It wouldn’t matter if it was a group of men, or women, or both talking, shouldn’t all have to respectfully contribute to conversations here on forums, and not butt in just to hear themselves type their words?
Right?! :facepalm:This. Pretty much what Bishop Pivarunas said to m directly a few moths ago when my family could no longer deal with the inconsistencies of the SSPX. We attend a CMRI mass 1.5 hours away every weekend as a result when we have a nice big SSPX chapel (St. Vincent de Paul kcmo). their Covid sellout made it much easier. Note also: Bishop Sanborn himself told me about the same time that CMRi was fine, their priests are sound.
I thought I'd add Bishop Pivarunas' statement from 2002 on the una cuм matter. I can't find anything more recent.
Although His Excellency allows for assistance there, he is certainly not encouraging it due to their theological contradictions and erroneous opinions:
The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (C.M.R.I.) holds that the Catholic faithful may petition the Sacraments from traditional Catholic priests who unfortunately offer their Masses "una cuм" (John Paul II).
Although C.M.R.I. does not accept John Paul II as a legitimate successor of St. Peter, it does not consider such traditional priests (who offer "una cuм" Masses) as schismatic. For, if such priests were schismatic in the canonical sense of the word, then they would be required, upon their recognition of the vacancy of the Apostolic See, to abjure their error and be received back into the Church.
Nevertheless, it has never been the practice of any traditional bishop or priest to require this abjuration of error of any priest who at one time mistakenly recognized John Paul II as a true pope.
This does not mean that C.M.R.I. in any way endorses the theological contradiction of those traditional priests who maintain that John Paul II is a true pope.
Lastly, we exhort the faithful to use great discretion when they approach such priests for the Sacraments. This is especially true in regard to their children, who may be confused by their erroneous opinions on the Papacy and on the infallibility of the Church.
Bp. Mark Pivarunas, C.M.R.I., Superior General
The Priests of C.M.R.I.
August 10, 2002
This. Pretty much what Bishop Pivarunas said to m directly a few moths ago when my family could no longer deal with the inconsistencies of the SSPX. We attend a CMRI mass 1.5 hours away every weekend as a result when we have a nice big SSPX chapel (St. Vincent de Paul kcmo). their Covid sellout made it much easier. Note also: Bishop Sanborn himself told me about the same time that CMRi was fine, their priests are sound.Fascinating. So, why is Heiner so anti-CMRI all of a sudden? It seems to me that Bishop Sanborn would be in agreement. I think there is more to this than meets the eye.
This. Pretty much what Bishop Pivarunas said to m directly a few moths ago when my family could no longer deal with the inconsistencies of the SSPX. We attend a CMRI mass 1.5 hours away every weekend as a result when we have a nice big SSPX chapel (St. Vincent de Paul kcmo). their Covid sellout made it much easier. Note also: Bishop Sanborn himself told me about the same time that CMRi was fine, their priests are sound.Have you read up on the Thuc consecrations? I'd be careful with the CMRI.
Have you read up on the Thuc consecrations? I'd be careful with the CMRI.:facepalm::sleep:
https://benedictinos.blog/2020/10/15/the-ministry-and-validity-of-mons-thuc/?amp=1
(https://benedictinos.blog/2020/10/15/the-ministry-and-validity-of-mons-thuc/?amp=1)
There are 2 Thuc lines: Moises Carmona and Gerard des Lauriers. Gerard des Lauriers consecrated in secret(?) and Moises Carmona consecrated openly with supplied jurisdiction. Epikea is mentioned. Bishop Pivarunas was consecrated under Carmona.Of course everyone understands there are different ones. The main point of the article is that Thuc's intentions cannot be trusted. He deliberately withheld his intentions in administering the sacraments on two different occasions. Both being self-admitted.
When I hear someone saying, oh, the Thuc line is not good or right, I question if they understand there are different Thuc lines.
Of course everyone understands there are different ones. The main point of the article is that Thuc's intentions cannot be trusted. He deliberately withheld his intentions in administering the sacraments on two different occasions. Both being self-admitted.No, I don't think he ever admitted that. It's a lie that he admitted to simulating sacraments. He denied ever simulating sacraments. And his post-consecration actions would indicate that he didn't simulate nor ever admitted simulating the sacraments. Just because someone with an ax to grind says he admitted something doesn't mean it is true that he admitted doing something.
No, I don't think he ever admitted that. It's a lie that he admitted to simulating sacraments. He denied ever simulating sacraments. And his post-consecration actions would indicate that he didn't simulate nor ever admitted simulating the sacraments. Just because someone with an ax to grind says he admitted something doesn't mean it is true that he admitted doing something.He says he did:“So after the questionable ordinations [Palmar de Troya], Bishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc renounced his actions and published a letter saying that the ‘orders’ he had conferred were null and void because he had withheld all intention of conveying orders to the Palmar de Troya sect.” (Angelus Magazine, June 1982 edition – emphasis supplied)
He denied ever simulating sacraments.Have you got any evidence for that?
Have you got any evidence for that?
I testify to have done the ordinations of Palmar in complete lucidity. I don't have anymore relations with Palmar after their chief nominated himself pope. I disapprove of all that they are doing. The declaration of Paul VI has been made without me; I heard of it only afterwards. Given the 19.XII.1981 at Toulon in complete possession of all my faculties.
Fascinating. So, why is Heiner so anti-CMRI all of a sudden? It seems to me that Bishop Sanborn would be in agreement. I think there is more to this than meets the eye.Can't answer for Heiner. I only know what Bishop Sanborn said to ME. CMRI priests are sound. he did say he thinks they are a little soft on modesty issues. he said it would b a mortal sin to attend resistance mass (one north of St. Mary's that my wife's family attend) because of the Una cuм issue
Have you got any evidence for that?"Yes"
"Yes"(https://www.picgifs.com/reaction-gifs/reaction-gifs/wtf/wtf026.gif)
He says he did:“So after the questionable ordinations [Palmar de Troya], Bishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc renounced his actions and published a letter saying that the ‘orders’ he had conferred were null and void because he had withheld all intention of conveying orders to the Palmar de Troya sect.” (Angelus Magazine, June 1982 edition – emphasis supplied)
Did the Angelus Magazine in June 1982 make this up? If so, why did Thuc never rebuke the lie?
"If there was rebuttal evidence to be found, that would be one thing, but there is no rebuttal evidence to be found anywhere. This absence alone speaks volumes.In the normal course of events, if any bishop was falsely charged with such a serious crime as simulating the Sacraments of the Church, one would expect a very loud and vocal denial of the accusations, followed by immediate demands for correction and retraction. Perhaps a defamation suit might even be in order. But in the case of Bishop Thuc, the record is absolutely silent. The article in the Angelus magazine was published two and one-half years before his death, and yet there is not a peep of protest against it to be found anywhere."
This is not an opinion. It is a matter of fact that heretics reign in the material structures of the Church and where there is heresy there is no holiness, regardless of appearances. The Arians were known for their penances, prayers, zeal, and good works but it availed them for naught since they had no faith on account of their one single heresy.Jupiter sounds an awful lot like Moran...
Also, yes, madame, a Catholic cannot be in communion with a heretic by divine law.
Oh dear God, help me, please. How many people are claiming to be Pope? :confused: What is the name of this supposed pope that died about 33 years ago? Was he in Rome?Good. Don't go there.
Are you part of the Schuckardt (sp?) crowd in Spokane, WA?
Are you part of the group in Kansas that has their own "Pope?" (The guy in his basement--I think he called or calls himself "Pope Michael?"
Are you part of the Old Catholic cult?
Are you in the Palmar De Troya crowd?
Are you part of the group in Quebec that has now branched off into the US, but they claim their own "Pope?"
Are you part of the sub-group of Little Pebble cult--that goes along with
something else?
I have had friends mixed-up with all of these groups, except the first one of the 33 years ago "Pope." That's a new one for me.
Sorry, but I cannot wrap my head around this Lad. I cannot.
I have done my best to understand where you are coming from, but I don't think there is much hope for that.
You are telling me that I need new Priests? I don't think so. I think they are the only ones keeping me from going off the deep end into leaving the Catholic Church and following the church of anyone that sets themselves up to be Pope just because they are convinced they are the ones with the "correct answer."
Edit in: This leaves me with SSPX and FSSP. There is no way I am wandering down the path of "there is no Pope." NOPE, not gonna do it. Nor am I going to get caught up in "independent" chapels so quickly, for this same reason.
God help us all.
Anne: as long as anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ, says the adulterated New Order not mass, they are known by their fruits as heretics, enemies of the Church that Christ founded. This is Matthew 24 "abomination desolation" then Christ refers to Daniel prophet, the continual sacrifice of the Mass will come to an end, or nearly.I believe you are wrong here, songbird.
No tribunal is necessary, know them by their outward fruits. All those who say this adulterated mass are excommunicated. They excommunicated themselves, removed themselves by their own free will.
I will not follow their ways, and I can not say that I am in communion with them. They are prayed for as enemies of Christ's Church.
Have you read up on the Thuc consecrations? I'd be careful with the CMRI.I'd be careful with benedictinos.blog...
https://benedictinos.blog/2020/10/15/the-ministry-and-validity-of-mons-thuc/?amp=1
(https://benedictinos.blog/2020/10/15/the-ministry-and-validity-of-mons-thuc/?amp=1)
There are 2 Thuc lines: Moises Carmona and Gerard des Lauriers. Gerard des Lauriers consecrated in secret(?) and Moises Carmona consecrated openly with supplied jurisdiction. Epikea is mentioned. Bishop Pivarunas was consecrated under Carmona.Sure, with one being squishier than the next.
When I hear someone saying, oh, the Thuc line is not good or right, I question if they understand there are different Thuc lines.
Sure, with one being squishier than the next.
Did the Angelus Magazine in June 1982 make this up?
the ‘orders’ he had conferred were null and void because he had withheld all intention of conveying ordersHold on. When we're talking about traditional tridentine rites of ordination (or any tridentine sacrament) aren't those written/designed in such a way that the intention is PART of the prayer? In other words, as long as the bishop is valid, and matter/form (i.e. sacramental prayers) are said/valid, then his personal intention (or lack of one) is irrelevant, no?
Hold on. When we're talking about traditional tridentine rites of ordination (or any tridentine sacrament) aren't those written/designed in such a way that the intention is PART of the prayer? In other words, as long as the bishop is valid, and matter/form (i.e. sacramental prayers) are said/valid, then his personal intention (or lack of one) is irrelevant, no?
You could have a Satanist priest up there saying, "I don't intend to transubstantiate. I don't intend to transubstantiate." but if he goes through and performs the Rite that the Church intends to effect transubstantiation, he certainly intended to do what the Church does, and the Church's intention for the effect is transubstantiation.This is the exact example I had in mind. Lex orandi, lex credendi. I remember some EO guy on FE accusing me of thinking about the sacraments like they were magical spells because I made the same example about a Black Mass having a valid consecration (in an argument about the New Mass being evil).
This is the exact example I had in mind. Lex orandi, lex credendi. I remember some EO guy on FE accusing me of thinking about the sacraments like they were magical spells because I made the same example about a Black Mass having a valid consecration (in an argument about the New Mass being evil).
I think that one could make an argument that Black Masses are invalid because they're not really intending to do what the Church does. If you offer Mass in a Catholic Church at a scheduled time, for example, you're performing a Catholic Mass. But if you take it to some other venue and put all these Satanic circuмstances into the equation, that could vitiate what the Church intends to do with the Mass. But it's debatable.It is debatable. I would say that since God tolerates sacrilegious liturgies among the Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics, and (potentially) the Novus Ordo, all of which are an offense to Him; it's possible that He would tolerate a valid consecration in a Black Mass as well. But, that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
Not at all. +Guerard des Lauriers and +Carmona/+Zamora lines are very solid. There are a few nebulous ones out there where when asked about it +Thuc said he did not consecrate the person. But +Thuc repeatedly reaffirmed these 3 consecrations and had Hiller/Heller as witnesses, and there are even some pictures. They're not in doubt.I tried the Thuc route and got nothing but disappointment except one una cuм priest.
And, interestingly, the Palmar consecrations are very solid, and they even meet Bishop Kelly's made-up criteria for eliminating all doubt ... done publicly in front of many people, with competent assistants (pre-V2 ordained priests), certificates, etc.
From +des Lauriers -> +McKenna -> +Sanborn/+Neville ... totally solid
From +Carmona -> +Pivarunas -> +Dolan ... also solid
If anything, there are more questions about +Mendez y Gonzales -> +Kelly. +Mendez had suffered a stroke not too long before the consecration where members of his family said that he was extremely confused and didn't recognized them. I don't have any positive doubt, but there's a stronger negative doubt with this line than there is with the above-mentioned +Thuc lines.
Yes, I absolutely agree with this opinion. By performing the rite, the minister is doing WHAT the Church does. And the notion of "internal intention" is widely misinterpreted.How would this apply to the novus ordo mass? Do you believe that a new mass could be valid if a validly ordained priests offers it?
I use this analogy. I hold a loaded gun to someone's head, pull the trigger. Meanwhile, in my mind I'm saying, "I don't want him to die. I don't intend that he die." But by pulling the trigger you DID intend for him to die. Based on this warped definition of "formal intent," one would argue that he didn't really formally kill the person because he didn't intend for him to die. Of course he had the intent. When he willed and intended ("internally") the cause, then he also willed the effect.
You could have a Satanist priest up there saying, "I don't intend to transubstantiate. I don't intend to transubstantiate." but if he goes through and performs the Rite that the Church intends to effect transubstantiation, he certainly intended to do what the Church does, and the Church's intention for the effect is transubstantiation.
This warped notion of "formal" has also polluted some approaches to moral theology, such as regarding the jab. It's also been the root justification for EENS denial. But this concept has been abused and misapplied for the past few centuries.
How would this apply to the novus ordo mass? Do you believe that a new mass could be valid if a validly ordained priests offers it?No, from my understanding, it is because the liturgy itself is still intended to be a memorial of the Last Supper and a Communal Meal rather than the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary. So, while a valid priest could do a valid consecration during the liturgy, that doesn't make the Novus Ordo a valid Mass. It goes back to the point I made above about the possibility for a valid consecration in a Black Mass. Sure, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ may be there on the altar, but the liturgy itself is not directed toward the same end as the Holy Mass.
How would this apply to the novus ordo mass? Do you believe that a new mass could be valid if a validly ordained priests offers it?
I tried the Thuc route and got nothing but disappointment except one una cuм priest.
That's a different issue than validity of course, but I share your disappointment with many / most of the SV priests. Among other things, including a tendency to coldness and bitterness, they're about the worst when it comes to EENS.Zero theology, adamant about obedience to them, no common sense, off their rocker.
Among other things, including a tendency to coldness and bitterness
I've attached a pdf of Patrick Omlor's excellent booklet on the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae, which is, if I remember correctly, tackles this issue.
PHO's treatise, QTV for short, has never been refuted (claims of Salsa-boy aside). The NOM is invalid, in se, in Latin, English, Esperanto, what have you.
One has to learn things over time from various sources and even then, one has to then contend against the widespread malformation of human minds worldwide, general disrespect of clergy, and the frequent failure to recognize the laity’s proper role in subordination to those clergy.
Christians err and it is magnificent when they admit their errors and acknowledge how truly misguided it is for dust and ashes to be proud.
They didn’t know that I’m not one to rumor-monger, or to seek sensational headlines.
What was curious to me at the time, and is still curious, is the inability of someone to look at allegations and ask, “Is it true?”
Instead what we saw was partisanship: “These are my people, they can do no wrong, how dare you.”
But no one is above examination, not the SSPV, not the CMRI, not the RCI, not the IMBC, not SGG clergy, not anyone, not just now, but even in “normal” circuмstances in the Church.
I made a mistake on this front and I apologize for that.
I have (…) heard from numerous people that their CMRI clergy tell them that it is okay to go to una cuм Masses. I do not believe that there is a vast conspiracy of laypeople lying about the CMRI.
If I didn’t spell out my original intent in the article, I apologize for not being clear. I will not make the mistake again.
we are interested in lying and purposeless bomb-throwing
Prior to Fr. Cekada’s opinion in this matter, none of the older traditional clergy (Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, Bishop McKenna, Bishop Carmona, Bishop Musey, Father Stepanich, etc.) taught that it is a mortal sin for sedevacantists to attend an “una cuм” Mass.
But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Judge not, that you may not be judged, for with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.
(Matthew 5:22; 7:1-2)
But Dolan/sanborn/selway just gave an annulment so a man could marry Bp selway’s niece. The man was married one day, not the next, married into the selways the next. This person goes to a satellite mass center of Bp Dolan’s in Wisconsin. He left the church and got married. Couple years later he came back and a couple months after that he was married to a Selway girl in the church. No wedding banns of course, completely against canon law, the marriage being hush hush. I guess Bp Selway and Dolan meant chastity and being single for people who want to marry a non-Selway.
These guys are a joke
NEEDLESS DIVISION, SCANDALOUS BEHAVIOR, MAKING BAD THINGS WORSEThe Inherent Dangers of Disagreeing with a Traditional Catholic about AnythingOnce upon a time it was a given that traditional Catholics were good Catholics.
Yes. I copied and pasted it.
Is this an article that is copied from somewhere?
How do they have any authority to grant an annulment? Epikeia?That is rather interesting if true. I'm sad to hear it.
Or is this just a "lack of form" case (did not marry in the Church in the previous putative marriage), where facts could be verified, and proofs assembled, such that invalidity could be established with moral certainty? How does that work in the various traditional organizations?