Author Topic: Latest on the Una cuм controversy (Read 3508 times)

Ambrose · « **on:** April 03, 2014, 07:17:06 PM »

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1602

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #1 on:** April 03, 2014, 07:41:21 PM »

A "real" reply to Fr. Cekada's position is John Lane's article here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/una_cuм.html

I recently had a pretty lengthy set of emails with a traditional Catholic who shares Fr. Cekada's position on una cuм. He was (and remains, I believe) very entrenched in it and seems to especially "hang his hat" on the fact that no traditional priest has written a rebuttal to Fr. C's "Grain of Incense." I told him that rebuttals have been written, they were just written before "Incense" was. Anyways, as Mr. Lane points out, it seems that Fr. C is hanging his hat on the same rack, i.e., pointing out the fact that no priest has written a rebuttal to a specific article of his.

The una cuм controversy, so far as I can tell (reading both "sides") has not had any new evidence added to support it-- perhaps more evidence has been added to the pile, but the essential argument remains the same and rests on proving that the "una cuм" clause in the mass is an all-inclusory expression of the same faith as the one named. If you prove this, the rest follows and "una cuм masses" really would be an abomination and an act of apostasy in some cases. However, failing to prove this point mitigates all subsequent reasons for not attending, since the inclusion of [antipope x] is "merely" an error of fact, and as morally significant as if the priest named a pope who had died three hours before he celebrated mass.

Anyways, the essential argument has remained the same, so there really is no reason for Fr. C to use the fact that no one has replied to a particular article when the arguments he uses have already been replied to before he even wrote the article. Besides the earlier linked article by John Lane, a good "primer" article would be Mr. Lane's interjections to + (then Fr.) Sanborns "VII, the Pope and the Mass" http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/interjections.html

Also, an article written in the early nineties by Fr. Lamoureau in response to an earlier article written by Fr. Belmont, published by Fr. Barbara in Fortes in Fide:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/188335648/Una-Quicuм

Charlemagne · « **Reply #2 on:** April 03, 2014, 08:10:04 PM »

I'm a sedevacantist who lives in the Southwest. The only non-una cuм Mass near us is at the home of the (rumored) nutty man affiliated with SGG (I refuse to list his name). Therefore, we attend an una cuм Mass because I will not deprive our children of the graces of the Holy Mass. Sedevacantism is only my opinion; it's not dogma. Of course, I would prefer to not attend an una cuм Mass, but I also refuse to expose our children to a possibly cultish environment.

Ambrose · « **Reply #3 on:** April 03, 2014, 11:09:12 PM »

Quote from: Charlemagne

I'm a sedevacantist who lives in the Southwest. The only non-una cuм Mass near us is at the home of the (rumored) nutty man affiliated with SGG (I refuse to list his name). Therefore, we attend an una cuм Mass because I will not deprive our children of the graces of the Holy Mass. Sedevacantism is only my opinion; it's not dogma. Of course, I would prefer to not attend an una cuм Mass, but I also refuse to expose our children to a possibly cultish environment.

You are wise to avoid chapels with significant issues. I also have the same view. The una cuм issue was never a dividing point for Sedevacantists, but now in recent years it has become another division among Catholics.

Since the una cuм masses are supposedly objectively schismatic, I wonder if Fr. Cekada, Bp. Sanborn, Bp. Dolan and the others who hold this view have paid back the mass stipends that they took whole mentioning the name of the antipope. :confused1:

Mabel · « **Reply #4 on:** April 03, 2014, 11:22:31 PM »

I was reading through some of the SGG affiliated sites as a refresher, as I haven't dealt with them in years.

It looks like it is the policy at some chapels to disqualify people from recieving Holy communion if they attend "una cuм" masses. I do attend non-sede masses, so the list of where I, as a Catholic, cannot go to mass seems to be growing. I've seen signs of this crowd getting more cultish over the years, I fear that it may get worse.

Olive · « **Reply #5 on:** April 04, 2014, 03:47:31 PM »

Well, perhaps no priest is interested in word spats with Fr Cekada - and that is why no priest has written a rebuttal. To what end?

Personally, I can say that Bp McKenna, the same bishop who raised Bp Sanborn to the episcopacy, said that if one cannot find a sede Mass site, then to go to the SSPX for sacraments (this was in a specific, personal conversation) and then leave. Do not socialize or hang out at the [SSPX] chapel afterwards. Just receive the sacraments and leave.

So, he acknowledges that the SSPX sacraments are valid and worthy even though he does not agree with their position during this Church crisis.

There seems to be no 100% agreement across the board amongst the sede clergy regarding una cuм.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #6 on:** April 04, 2014, 05:55:26 PM »

Quote from: Olive

Well, perhaps no priest is interested in word spats with Fr Cekada - and that is why no priest has written a rebuttal. To what end?

Personally, I can say that Bp McKenna, the same bishop who raised Bp Sanborn to the episcopacy, said that if one cannot find a sede Mass site, then to go to the SSPX for sacraments (this was in a specific, personal conversation) and then leave. Do not socialize or hang out at the [SSPX] chapel afterwards. Just receive the sacraments and leave.

So, he acknowledges that the SSPX sacraments are valid and worthy even though he does not agree with their position during this Church crisis.

There seems to be no 100% agreement across the board amongst the sede clergy regarding una cuм.

If we are to take American sedevacantism as a whole, it is true that there is no "100% agreement" on the issue, but at the same time it's probably worth pointing out that the majority opinion is "anti-anti una cuм."

Nor was there any serious categorical condemnation of the una cuм mass until Guerard de Lauriers in the late 70's.

2Vermont · « **Reply #7 on:** April 04, 2014, 06:42:12 PM »

I know I need to further investigate this and I have not read through the whole thing, but this is his first refutation? Really?

Why the need to distort the facts? The priest doesn't "proclaim" that Bergoglio is pope. He whispers it.

mmm.....k.

songbird · « **Reply #8 on:** April 04, 2014, 07:19:33 PM »

....Thou wouldst deign to give her peace and protection, to unite and guide her the whole world over; together with Thy servant, N. our Pope.

Is he a servant to Jesus Christ? ...and all "true" believers, who cherish the catholic and apostolic faith.

Truth is, he is not pope, for he does not do these things that are mentioned. It does not mean that we do not pray for him, for if that was the case, we would not be acting catholic. We pray for him and enemies as well for their conversion.

Mabel · « **Reply #9 on:** April 04, 2014, 08:01:16 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

I know I need to further investigate this and I have not read through the whole thing, but this is his first refutation? Really?

Why the need to distort the facts? The priest doesn't "proclaim" that Bergoglio is pope. He whispers it.

mmm.....k.

Do you mean Cekada or Lane?

They have gone back and forth for years. Others have written in refutation of Cekada's stance as well.

One of his main accusations is that he will say that the refusal to condemn the "una cuм" is based on geography, meaning that people who have no other access to mass are putting the "truth" to the side for an "objectively schismatic" mass.

I'd personally would ask the same question of him. The SGG clergy have a vested interest in consolidating traditionalists to their chapel, especially in Cincinatti. They are using geography to justify their position as well by keeping their pews filled. Would there be as much focus on the una cuм issue if a) they didn't have history with the SSPX b) they didn't have such a bitter relationship with SSPX c) their rivals (SSPX) were not competing locally for parishoners?

I don't think anyone with their history and circuмstances can look at this with an objective mindset. Fr. Cekada cannot be trusted to give an opinion on this matter, no matter how sweetly or diplomatically he says it it person.

Anyways, that is just part of the problem.

2Vermont · « **Reply #10 on:** April 05, 2014, 07:42:50 AM »

The refutation was Lane's. As if "whispering" can't be "proclaiming" especially in a TLM which is often said in a whisper. I guess the priest doesn't proclaim much in a TLM.

Like I said, I know there is more to read but that was the first one I saw and how ridiculous an argument can you get?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #11 on:** April 05, 2014, 07:56:18 AM »

It's been brought to my attention that one of the articles I linked to was not written by "Fr." Lamoureau, but by "F.X." Lamoureau, which is apparently a pseudonym. Sorry about that.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #12 on:** April 05, 2014, 08:39:57 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

The refutation was Lane's. As if "whispering" can't be "proclaiming" especially in a TLM which is often said in a whisper. I guess the priest doesn't proclaim much in a TLM.

Like I said, I know there is more to read but that was the first one I saw and how ridiculous an argument can you get?

What Mr. Lane wrote wasn't really a refutation. He's already written articles on the topic, and is casually pointing out how Fr. C uses language to give his argument more weight.

The very fact that the majority of sedevacantists do not share Fr. C's opinion on this matter should be proof that, even if he were right (which I don't think he is) the answer to the una cuм question is far from obvious.

2Vermont · « **Reply #13 on:** April 05, 2014, 09:34:44 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: 2Vermont
The refutation was Lane's. As if "whispering" can't be "proclaiming" especially in a TLM which is often said in a whisper. I guess the priest doesn't proclaim much in a TLM.

Like I said, I know there is more to read but that was the first one I saw and how ridiculous an argument can you get?

What Mr. Lane wrote wasn't really a refutation. He's already written articles on the topic, and is casually pointing out how Fr. C uses language to give his argument more weight.

The very fact that the majority of sedevacantists do not share Fr. C's opinion on this matter should be proof that, even if he were right (which I don't think he is) the answer to the una cuм question is far from obvious.

Mith, I respect you. And I'm not saying you're wrong. But just because a majority of any group of people think something doesn't automatically make it true.

Just look at the majority of people who recognize Francis as pope.

Ambrose · « **Reply #14 on:** April 05, 2014, 02:22:46 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: 2Vermont
The refutation was Lane's. As if "whispering" can't be "proclaiming" especially in a TLM which is often said in a whisper. I guess the priest doesn't proclaim much in a TLM.

Like I said, I know there is more to read but that was the first one I saw and how ridiculous an argument can you get?

What Mr. Lane wrote wasn't really a refutation. He's already written articles on the topic, and is casually pointing out how Fr. C uses language to give his argument more weight.

The very fact that the majority of sedevacantists do not share Fr. C's opinion on this matter should be proof that, even if he were right (which I don't think he is) the answer to the una cuм question is far from obvious.

Mith, I respect you. And I'm not saying you're wrong. But just because a majority of any group of people think something doesn't automatically make it true.

Just look at the majority of people who recognize Francis as pope.

2Vermont,

This anti-una cuм position is full of holes that are ignored by its proponents. I would urge you to read some of the lengthy threads which covered this on the Bellarmine Forums.