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

« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Una cuм History  (Read 3186 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LeDeg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 800
  • Reputation: +561/-136
  • Gender: Male
  • I am responsible only to God and history.
Una cuм History
« on: January 06, 2026, 12:51:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I would like some clarification on some observations I have made on the Una cuм issue.


    First, were Masses said by the state appointed clergy in France after the revolution illicit or invalid? It is my understanding that state appointed bishops were named in the Te Igitur. Didn't popes declare the attendance of those Masses, albeit valid, to be forbidden?


    Secondly, missals from the the 19th century in the UK at times named kings, which of course names the head of a schismatic church, since the king of England is also the head of the Church of England. Again valid, but what was Church's stance on this?

    Finally, is the pro Una cuм issue today even analogous to the Great Western Schism as the Dimonds argue? The GWS was an issue of who was legitimately elected. To my knowledge, none of them were blasphemous, sacrilegious heretics. 

    Thoughts?
    Logged
    "You must train harder than the enemy who is trying to kill you. You will get all the rest you need in the grave."- Leon Degrelle

    Offline SkidRowCatholic

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 582
    • Reputation: +61/-25
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Una cuм History
    « Reply #1 on: January 06, 2026, 01:08:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • I already answered you HERE

    Maybe you didn't see?

    Or, what did you not find satisfactory?





    In regards to the great Western Schism there is no parallel:

    Objection 4.

    Further, the case of a manifest heretic must be analogous to the Western Schism, where Catholics named different claimants in the Canon without committing a lie or sacrilege. There, confusion arose from disputed elections and politics, not manifest heresy; claimants remained orthodox in faith. Naming one in good faith, even if mistaken, did not signify false unity or idolatry. Therefore, naming a presumed Pope today, amid confusion, cannot be morally impossible, provided no manifest heresy ruptures communion.

    Reply to Objection 4.

    The Western Schism differed essentially from a case of manifest heresy. There, the dispute concerned validity of election amid confusion and politics; no claimant was accused of public, obstinate heresy rupturing faith. All lines professed orthodox doctrine. Naming a claimant in material error (without moral certainty of falsity in faith) involved no lie about unity in belief, nor idolatry.

    But where moral certainty exists that a claimant is a manifest heretic, naming him professes unity in "orthodox faith" with one separated from the Church. This signifies falsehood, akin to deliberate schism (distinct from the French Revolution's juring priests, who swore to a schismatic constitution).

    St. Vincent Ferrer, O.P., warned: “...by adhering to one who is not pope, as though he were pope, by showing papal reverence to him, they transgress the first precept... For who indeed is a false pope, if not some strange god in this world, or an idol...?”
    Thus, with moral certainty of heresy, naming becomes sin; without it (as in mere electoral doubt of the Schism), it does not. The cases are not analogous where heresy manifests publicly.
    Logged
    Pages: [1]
    « previous next »