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

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion  (Read 14238 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kephapaulos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1894
  • Reputation: +490/-20
  • Gender: Male
Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion
« on: February 22, 2024, 08:37:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I am thinking I asked this in the past before but am not sure which thread if so. 

    If, according to sedevacantists and other hardline traditionalists, recognize & resist and indult chapels have actual invalidly ordained priests and bishops with also no ordinary authority and are actually outside the Catholic Church, then would that not mean that most clerics and faithful in those groups are perhaps currently in mortal sin, especially if they know of, understand, or suspect that it is wrong that their clerics are invalidly ordained or that it is wrong to attend a Mass in union with Francis?
    Logged
    "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis; sed nomini tuo da gloriam..." (Ps. 113:9)

    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11934
    • Reputation: +7293/-500
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion
    « Reply #1 on: February 23, 2024, 04:48:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Kephapaulos on February 22, 2024, 08:37:47 PM
    I am thinking I asked this in the past before but am not sure which thread if so.

    If, according to sedevacantists and other hardline traditionalists, recognize & resist and indult chapels have actual invalidly ordained priests and bishops with also no ordinary authority and are actually outside the Catholic Church, then would that not mean that most clerics and faithful in those groups are perhaps currently in mortal sin, especially if they know of, understand, or suspect that it is wrong that their clerics are invalidly ordained or that it is wrong to attend a Mass in union with Francis?
    It could be that, in spite of this post being read 400 times, your 80 word sentence is too daunting to tackle. Just what is your question? I haven’t been able to decipher; besides you have made some questionable assertions.

    Logged
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    +RIP 2024

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14787
    • Reputation: +6107/-913
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion
    « Reply #2 on: February 23, 2024, 05:21:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Kephapaulos on February 22, 2024, 08:37:47 PM
    I am thinking I asked this in the past before but am not sure which thread if so.

    If, according to sedevacantists and other hardline traditionalists, recognize & resist and indult chapels have actual invalidly ordained priests and bishops with also no ordinary authority and are actually outside the Catholic Church, then would that not mean that most clerics and faithful in those groups are perhaps currently in mortal sin, especially if they know of, understand, or suspect that it is wrong that their clerics are invalidly ordained or that it is wrong to attend a Mass in union with Francis?
    I'll take a shot at it Nadir.

    You can read the whole article here, I will just quote the part pertaining to this issue directly, but the whole article is worth reading.

    "....Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed:

    “We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope.”

    It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have …, nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!..." - Archbishop Lefebvre, retreat at Saint-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989


    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline AMDGJMJ

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4020
    • Reputation: +2457/-95
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion
    « Reply #3 on: February 23, 2024, 05:27:27 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Kephapaulos on February 22, 2024, 08:37:47 PM
    I am thinking I asked this in the past before but am not sure which thread if so.

    If, according to sedevacantists and other hardline traditionalists, recognize & resist and indult chapels have actual invalidly ordained priests and bishops with also no ordinary authority and are actually outside the Catholic Church, then would that not mean that most clerics and faithful in those groups are perhaps currently in mortal sin, especially if they know of, understand, or suspect that it is wrong that their clerics are invalidly ordained or that it is wrong to attend a Mass in union with Francis?
    As far as I understand...

    Most sede and hardline Catholics generally consider recognize and resist chapels as having valid priests but Indult priests generally as doubtfully valid.  It is like a good CMRI priest once told my husband back when he converted and was asking the difference between the SSPX and the FSSP:

    "Most SSPX priests are valid.  Most FSSP priests are invalid."

    That being said...  

    Until the Church makes everything clear there are a lot of matters which people can disagree on without being non-Catholic.  

    While I myself would not go to the FSSP because I believe that most of their priests being ordained in the New Rite or by novus ordo bishops are likely invalid, I would not hesitate to go to the Mass of a trustworthy Resistance priest like Father Chazal or Bishop Zendejas.

    Logged
    "Jesus, Meek and Humble of Heart, make my heart like unto Thine!"

    http://whoshallfindavaliantwoman.blogspot.com/

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46904
    • Reputation: +27774/-5163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion
    « Reply #4 on: February 23, 2024, 07:05:11 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • OP, you're conflating ...

    1) doubtful validity of NO Orders
    2) una cuм

    and then also

    1) objective reality
    2) subjective mortal sin

    Obviously the majority of those who deal in doubtful NO Orders believe that they're valid, so barring God's knowledge of some insincerity in the internal forum, we can't judge them guilty of mortal sin for operating as if they were valid.

    As for una cuм, most sedevacantists don't consider every priest who offers Mass una cuм to be inherently non-Catholic or somehow in mortal sin.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6476/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion
    « Reply #5 on: February 23, 2024, 07:15:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Kephapaulos on February 22, 2024, 08:37:47 PM
    I am thinking I asked this in the past before but am not sure which thread if so.

    If, according to sedevacantists and other hardline traditionalists, recognize & resist and indult chapels have actual invalidly ordained priests and bishops with also no ordinary authority and are actually outside the Catholic Church, then would that not mean that most clerics and faithful in those groups are perhaps currently in mortal sin, especially if they know of, understand, or suspect that it is wrong that their clerics are invalidly ordained or that it is wrong to attend a Mass in union with Francis?
    It sounds like you are asking this because you think that this would be the proper conclusion (that they are in mortal sin).  Do you?

    Or are you questioning those who make this conclusion (which, btw, does not include the majority of SV's and "other hardline trads")?
    Logged

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion
    « Reply #6 on: February 23, 2024, 10:29:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 23, 2024, 07:05:11 AM
    OP, you're conflating ...

    1) doubtful validity of NO Orders
    2) una cuм

    and then also

    1) objective reality
    2) subjective mortal sin

    Obviously the majority of those who deal in doubtful NO Orders believe that they're valid, so barring God's knowledge of some insincerity in the internal forum, we can't judge them guilty of mortal sin for operating as if they were valid.

    As for una cuм, most sedevacantists don't consider every priest who offers Mass una cuм to be inherently non-Catholic or somehow in mortal sin.
    He could also (in part?) mean mortal sin by accident, like say you confessed with imperfect contrition some OTHER mortal sin to an NO priest who was invalid, presumably you could still be in mortal sin 
    Logged

    Offline Miseremini

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4592
    • Reputation: +3653/-313
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion
    « Reply #7 on: February 23, 2024, 01:54:37 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on February 23, 2024, 10:29:19 AM
    He could also (in part?) mean mortal sin by accident, like say you confessed with imperfect contrition some OTHER mortal sin to an NO priest who was invalid, presumably you could still be in mortal sin
    How can you still be in mortal sin that was committed by accident?
    Most people on CI say it has to be grievous and you have to know it and do it anyway for it to be mortal.
    Logged
    "Let God arise, and let His enemies be scattered: and them that hate Him flee from before His Holy Face"  Psalm 67:2[/b]

    Offline Kephapaulos

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1894
    • Reputation: +490/-20
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion
    « Reply #8 on: February 23, 2024, 03:06:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Kephapaulos on February 22, 2024, 08:37:47 PM
    I am thinking I asked this in the past before but am not sure which thread if so.

    If, according to sedevacantists and other hardline traditionalists, recognize & resist and indult chapels have actual invalidly ordained priests and bishops with also no ordinary authority and are actually outside the Catholic Church, then would that not mean that most clerics and faithful in those groups are perhaps currently in mortal sin, especially if they know of, understand, or suspect that it is wrong that their clerics are invalidly ordained or that it is wrong to attend a Mass in union with Francis?

    I am sorry, Nadir and Ladislaus. I will try to make it clearer. I was trying to condense everything precisely within one question.

    If sedevacantists and Resistance argue that indult and some priests who help the SSPX are invalidly ordained, then would that mean that many are objectively in mortal sin possibly?

    Also, if sedevacantist groups like the RCI, SGG, and IMBC argue against attending una cuм Masses, then would that not mean according to them that many who claim to be Catholic are objectively not Catholic and are schismatic and in mortal sin possibly? 
    Logged
    "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis; sed nomini tuo da gloriam..." (Ps. 113:9)

    Offline AMDGJMJ

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4020
    • Reputation: +2457/-95
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion
    « Reply #9 on: February 24, 2024, 05:36:39 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Kephapaulos on February 23, 2024, 03:06:26 PM
    I am sorry, Nadir and Ladislaus. I will try to make it clearer. I was trying to condense everything precisely within one question.

    If sedevacantists and Resistance argue that indult and some priests who help the SSPX are invalidly ordained, then would that mean that many are objectively in mortal sin possibly?

    Also, if sedevacantist groups like the RCI, SGG, and IMBC argue against attending una cuм Masses, then would that not mean according to them that many who claim to be Catholic are objectively not Catholic and are schismatic and in mortal sin possibly?
    The Baltimore Catechism says that for a sin to be mortal 3 things are necessary:

    1. It must be seriously wrong.
    2. The person must know that it is seriously wrong.
    3.  The person must give full consent to it.

    Without the normal Church Hierarchy to define and explain things, it is hard to say with absolute certainty that these things are mortal sins (even if we personally believe that they are and that they may be for us in particular).

    The Church has the final say on these matter.  Until the day when the Restoration of the Catholic Hierarchy occurs all that anyone can have is opinions but we can not bind anyone else.  We have no authority and there is no true authority without the guidance of the True Hierarchy of the Catholic and Apostolic Church.
    Logged
    "Jesus, Meek and Humble of Heart, make my heart like unto Thine!"

    http://whoshallfindavaliantwoman.blogspot.com/

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6476/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion
    « Reply #10 on: February 24, 2024, 05:46:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Kephapaulos on February 23, 2024, 03:06:26 PM
    I am sorry, Nadir and Ladislaus. I will try to make it clearer. I was trying to condense everything precisely within one question.

    If sedevacantists and Resistance argue that indult and some priests who help the SSPX are invalidly ordained, then would that mean that many are objectively in mortal sin possibly?

    Also, if sedevacantist groups like the RCI, SGG, and IMBC argue against attending una cuм Masses, then would that not mean according to them that many who claim to be Catholic are objectively not Catholic and are schismatic and in mortal sin possibly?
    It seems like you are looking for yes or no answers to your questions considering you have not responded to other posters' comments/questions.  It also makes me wonder what the real purpose is for this thread.
    Logged

    Offline ElwinRansom1970

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1064
    • Reputation: +808/-157
    • Gender: Male
    • γνῶθι σεαυτόν - temet nosce
    Re: Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion
    « Reply #11 on: February 24, 2024, 06:40:10 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: AMDGJMJ on February 24, 2024, 05:36:39 AM
    The Baltimore Catechism says that for a sin to be mortal 3 things are necessary:

    1. It must be seriously wrong.
    2. The person must know that it is seriously wrong.
    3.  The person must give full consent to it.

    Without the normal Church Hierarchy to define and explain things, it is hard to say with absolute certainty that these things are mortal sins (even if we personally believe that they are and that they may be for us in particular).

    The Church has the final say on these matter.  Until the day when the Restoration of the Catholic Hierarchy occurs all that anyone can have is opinions but we can not bind anyone else.  We have no authority and there is no true authority without the guidance of the True Hierarchy of the Catholic and Apostolic Church.
    Why are you quoting a non-authoritative catechism? The catechism that you quote is a local catechism that is itself infected with theological Liberalism
    Quote the Roman Catechism. It is the only authoritative one.
    Logged
    "I distrust every idea that does not seem obsolete and grotesque to my contemporaries."
    - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

    Offline Kephapaulos

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1894
    • Reputation: +490/-20
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion
    « Reply #12 on: February 24, 2024, 10:31:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on February 23, 2024, 07:15:39 AM
    It sounds like you are asking this because you think that this would be the proper conclusion (that they are in mortal sin).  Do you?

    Or are you questioning those who make this conclusion (which, btw, does not include the majority of SV's and "other hardline trads")?

    I am sorry, 2Vermont. I failed to realize ypu were asking me these questions.

    1) I think it might be the proper conclusion but am not sure if there is alternate explanation.

    2) I am posing the questions to sedevacantist and hardline trads.
    Logged
    "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis; sed nomini tuo da gloriam..." (Ps. 113:9)

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6476/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion
    « Reply #13 on: February 25, 2024, 06:18:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Kephapaulos on February 24, 2024, 10:31:58 PM
    I am sorry, 2Vermont. I failed to realize ypu were asking me these questions.

    1) I think it might be the proper conclusion but am not sure if there is alternate explanation.

    2) I am posing the questions to sedevacantist and hardline trads.
    OK.  Have you looked into what different sedevacantist/trad clergy say about these issues?  It seems to me that should be your first step rather than asking us lay folk our opinions.

    Here is what Bishop Pivarunas (CMRI) says of the una cuм issue and whether one can assign mortal sin:

    My Thoughts in Regard to the “Una cuм” Issue – CMRI: Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen

    I don't see anything on their site pertaining to assisting at the traditional mass offered by a doubtfully ordained priest, but I would imagine that similar arguments would be used regarding assigning mortal sin to those who assist at the mass of such a priest.

    Having said that, if a trad is purposely avoiding the doubtful/invalid NO priests at the NO "mass", why would they then go to a SSPX mass if they know a particular SSPX priest is formerly NO and was never conditionally ordained?

    Logged

    Offline Kephapaulos

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1894
    • Reputation: +490/-20
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Invalid Sacraments and/or una cuм Conclusion
    « Reply #14 on: March 02, 2024, 12:21:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on February 25, 2024, 06:18:27 AM
    OK.  Have you looked into what different sedevacantist/trad clergy say about these issues?  It seems to me that should be your first step rather than asking us lay folk our opinions.

    Here is what Bishop Pivarunas (CMRI) says of the una cuм issue and whether one can assign mortal sin:

    My Thoughts in Regard to the “Una cuм” Issue – CMRI: Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen

    I don't see anything on their site pertaining to assisting at the traditional mass offered by a doubtfully ordained priest, but I would imagine that similar arguments would be used regarding assigning mortal sin to those who assist at the mass of such a priest.

    Having said that, if a trad is purposely avoiding the doubtful/invalid NO priests at the NO "mass", why would they then go to a SSPX mass if they know a particular SSPX priest is formerly NO and was never conditionally ordained?


    I have indeed looked and read up on the different positions.

    It would just seem to me that the conclusion would be that many traditional Catholics would be in objective mortal sin if they are currently receiving invalid sacraments or attending una cuм Masses. 

    Also, perhaps some traditionalists take the risk of attendings Masses of a doubtful traditional cleric due to habit or wanting to keep the habit through simulation. 

    I wanted to simply ask the thoughts of those who are sedevacantists and hardliners on this matter to get a better understanding.  
    Logged
    "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis; sed nomini tuo da gloriam..." (Ps. 113:9)
    Pages: [1] 2
    « previous next »