Author Topic: Mass Attendance Papacy and una cuм issues (Read 1164 times)

Ambrose · « **on:** January 01, 2014, 12:20:38 AM »

St Cecilia's Girl wrote:

Quote from: StCeciliasGirl

Quote from: Ambrose

I agree with you here. With the exception of one priest who was anti-sedevacantist, and made it a point to very loudly use the name of the anti-pope, I have never even heard the priest during this part of the canon.

I am not troubled by this issue anyway, as these antipopes remain uncondemned heretics, and the priests who are "in communion" with them are not heretics themselves.

This "una cuм" debate is a tree of rotten fruit, further dividing Catholics and is based on sophistry.

For those who insist on this view that mass "una cuм" the antipope is "objectively schismatic," please show me any mass in the world in 1966 that was not "una cuм Paulus". Was the universal Church in schism?

For those "sede" priests that insist on this view that these masses were "objectively schismatic," have you refunded the mass stipends you were given for the masses said before you realized this new truth?

You know, this is a solid question. I can't imagine the 1960s, and as a kid in the 80s nobody mentioned the guy in white. Looking back, I know now that many older priests were probably NOT "going with the flow" and just avoiding, waiting for the old fart to die and praying for better. (That's my take on it from a kid's POV in the 80s; I recall one priest, who didn't last long at the parish, said as much though. I liked that priest. And got in trouble for saying as much —though my mom had to stifle a giggle when I asked why he had to be sent away for being honest. Wojtyla was the only guy I knew, and like I've said, I really thought first was +Jesus, who built His Church on St. Peter, then "JP2" and I guess I thought Pope Clement was JP1. File under "Weird stuff kids think.") (And yes I always forgot poor Popes Linus and ?Anacletus). —But if I recall, I think my parents said we prayed FOR JP2 (they accepted him as Pope back then). At Mass, I mean. I think our nuns said that too. (I wasn't always the best student. I was in math and stuff, but maybe I acted up a little in other subjects. I certainly hadn't studied Latin yet.)

Time passed, and then BXVI (see, even now, I can't help it: LOVE this guy because it's written in my heart and mind that he changed from 1960s to his Papacy, and that he also battled evil in the Vatican), but I guess we don't think he was a validly elected Pope because the Cards who elected him were questionable, except Cardinal Arinze and a choice few others back then. I really thought BXVI was en route to putting the sword of truth through the bad mass ("ordinary form") and, at great cost of membership but great bounty of godliness, was going to be the next (oh it sounds so wrong to say now) Pope St. Pius X. For real. We believed that and we did rosaries for him and his protection and everything. We thanked God for him. And even now, I'm being turned a little tiny bit by Fr. Kramer regarding the circuмstances behind BXVI's "departure". Fr. K's very convincing.

I wish Fr. Kramer could convince my husband. As it stands, my husband believes, non-dogmatically but believes in his heart, that Pope Pius XII was God's last Vicar, and that he was who St. Pope Pius X spoke of prophetically: the Pope who would suffer much and be tortured. I've found videos on Pius XII's last days, and wonder what's possible. I know the Holy Father's body being defaced wasn't a good sign. Would I have questioned it back then? I'd like to think so, yes. My grandmother apparently did; and loudly; and left the conciliar church in the late 60s or early 70s with a smile on her face, while the rest of the family did not. (My g-ma ran to the SSPX later though, feeling sure God had provided as He'd promised, and remained SSPX until she passed in 2001).

But your question, if one in the 60s should have remained in a prayer service, Mass, rosary intention, etc, with someone like Montini being called God's servant and Papa, but all else being equal, is very good. I imagine my g-ma didn't know much about Montini until the changes trickled over here to America, and therefore she didn't storm away in the early sixties, but I'm not sure who knew what when, among the priests and laity (especially those in America). Daddy says priests and Bishops kept all those politics quiet back then (duh, guess they still do —except ones with the spirit of Elijah, going against the grain and calling people out. Preach, Fr. Kramer!)

I imagine the answer for back then would be that Catholic clergy and laity had no reason to doubt! If they'd never heard of "opening windows", and it sounded nice (sounds nice to me when I hear what they say, or read the way it was presented), and Roncalli and Montini were still great dressers (got to give them that!), I think in Catholics' hearts (where God judges), they were merely being obedient and praying with people they trusted, in what they believed was the Church, without knowing the details of the unraveling (eg, getting rid of the Oath Against Modernism in 1967, and I'm not sure that was even publicized).

It can be very hard to see the big picture when you're in the middle of it, but do we really have such an excuse?

My question to you in this long diatribe, sorry about that :) is if you would remain in a service/Mass that had "una cuм famulo tuo Papa nostro Joel Osteen..." or "una cuм Che Guevara" or whatever? Because I beamed when I heard "Papa Benedictus" and was thrilled, but I don't think, even if my husband suddenly said, "We're Frankists now!", that I could present myself and our children dedicated to God "una cuм famulo tuo" a guy I think is possibly of "the spirit of this world". It would feel sinful; I couldn't get past it now. To me it would feel like the prayer was saying:

Quote from: una cuм Frankus
Yes, God, remember this conciliar church that is waaaaay different from what Christ instituted in St. Peter, and grow it anyway, together with Your "servant," the Adversary, who we're supposed to avoid like the plague, and who has separated from Your One Holy Apostolic Church, and all his self-styled bishops who broke their vows to You, and all the clergy who rape kids and live openly sinful lifestyles.

Maybe I think about it too much, but it just feels wrong, even though that bit sounds like a throwaway quickie. I really don't think it's a throwaway; something you can cross your fingers through while it's being said. Because you're still presenting yourself through the whole thing with the bad guy who you're naming servant of God and Papa, knowing all we know. I've tried thinking of Frank as having dementia (which really puts an exclamation point on the depravity of the conclave), but after that beach ball, a line was crossed, imo. A giant fat black line that says "beyond this point there is no hope", or "this way to stampede the Blood of Christ!" Dementia just can't explain that. (And note, that's before the "gαy is okay!" stuff, aka "Who am I to judge." And the even worse stuff that followed World Corruption Day 2013.)

Yeah, I guess I think it's not only a big deal, but a real showstopper. :sad:

I agree, and your husband may be right that Pope Pius XII was the last Pope. For myself, I know he was the last certain Pope. I remain unsure of John XXIII, but I am certain that Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis were not Popes. John Paul I also remains a mystery.

SCG wrote:

Quote

My question to you in this long diatribe, sorry about that :) is if you would remain in a service/Mass that had "una cuм famulo tuo Papa nostro Joel Osteen..." or "una cuм Che Guevara" or whatever? Because I beamed when I heard "Papa Benedictus" and was thrilled, but I don't think, even if my husband suddenly said, "We're Frankists now!", that I could present myself and our children dedicated to God "una cuм famulo tuo" a guy I think is possibly of "the spirit of this world". It would feel sinful; I couldn't get past it now. To me it would feel like the prayer was saying:

To name a man who is certainly not Pope in the canon, for example the men you mention is to make a mockery of the canon, so I would most certainly avoid such a mass.

The issue we are faced with is this: Francis and his predecessors make a plausible claim to the papacy for most Catholics. All of the trappings are there: a conclave, cardinals to elect, white smoke, ceremonies, ecclesiastical garb, their control of the Vatican City and for that matter all of the material wealth of the Church, and most importantly, the apparent recognition of these men as popes by the hierarchy and the Roman Clergy, along with most of the world's Catholics.

I would argue that the remaining lawful hierarchy and Roman Clergy who have kept the Faith, therefore their offices, have not accepted the claims of these men to the papacy. I would base this on the fact that anyone who truly accepts their claim also follows them into heresy. To resist them in the powers of their office, in their authoritative teaching, and law, is to implicitly deny their claim, but that is matter for another discussion.

It is understandable and reasonable that clergy can err on the status of the antipopes good Faith. In our case, these antipopes have frequently masked their heresy in vague and complex wording so few are absolutely certain that they are heretics. Secondly, the status of the antipope remains undeclared by the Church, meaning a Pope has not yet bound the Church to the fact that these men are heretics and excommunicates.

The trouble we have in our dilemma is this: We do not have the voice of authority. Without a Pope to rule the Church, and very few legitimate diocesan bishops left, most of whom think they are retired anyway, we have no rulers, no shepherds taking charge.

In the interim, no one can take charge, because the mission to do that cannot be self-generating. This crisis is truly unprecedented. We are witnessing what looks like the apparent death of the Church, as it appears that all of the lawful successors of the apostles have either died or defected. It seems to me that this is our test, just as the apostles knew that Our Lord died on the cross, but still believed in Him, we must trust that the Church continues despite the appearances.

We must remain calm on the boat in the middle of the storm, knowing that Jesus Christ is still fully in control, and is permitting this for his own reasons. We must also know with certainty that in the world today there remains some or at least one successor of the Apostles, and at least one Roman Cleric. They will never all die or all fall away into heresy. The Church continues dramatically smaller, but fully intact.

2Vermont · « **Reply #1 on:** January 01, 2014, 08:10:55 AM »

Again, if those (valid) masses were the only ones available would you both still avoid them? Or would you stay home? I'm not so sure I could do that.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #2 on:** January 01, 2014, 10:38:13 AM »

Hi Ambrose,

About the lying part. I took by implication that when I stated I heard the Priest use the name that when others said "well I never heard it" was being used to imply I was giving false information i.e. lying.

I'm glad we clarified that I am not. But that point is beside the discussion anyway.

It is easy to say I am wrong.

But is Father Stepanich wrong?

He called using the name of a false pope in the una cuм part of canon and "objectionable phrase". I am going to assume you do not believe I am lying about this either. Further, he stated that the SV is not obliged to go to such a Mass and that he cannot merely passively resist the objectionable phrase ("saying that is the Priest's problem but not mine") but must actively resist it. This a paraphrase but I give you the general idea of what he said. After thinking about what that meant for a while, does it mean carrying a sign into Church saying I resist the objectionable phrase in the canon that is una cuм heretic I realized this probably meant that when following along in the missal I merely need to skip the name of the false pope.

I'm not sure what you are saying. We should pretend that a Mass with an objectionable phrase in it is not objectionable and is equally as pleasing to God as one without an objectionable phrase?

Both Masses take us to Calvary, yes, but with one God plugs His nose for a minute while with the other there is nothing displeasing in it to Him in regards to the phrase itself. The subjectively culpability of the Priest who uses the phrase is a different issue. God can be pleased with the Priest himself while being displeased that a Mass that is offered una cuм heretic.

With all due respect I am not really interested in your answer as the answer is obvious whether or not one believes such a Mass can or should be attended when it is the only one available or not.

I just want to make clear that I am speaking about the objective reality of assisting at a Mass where one knows it is being offered una cuм heretic. Why would an SV not care either way?

Ambrose · « **Reply #3 on:** January 01, 2014, 12:31:21 PM »

LoT wrote: regarding Fr. Stepanich:

Quote

He called using the name of a false pope in the una cuм part of canon and "objectionable phrase".

That is fine if he wished to use that term, "objectionable phrase," but I would rather describe what the term is in itself.

LoT wrote:

Quote

I am going to assume you do not believe I am lying about this either.

Will you drop the lying issue? If I thought you were a liar, I would tell you. I have not ever accused you of this, so why are you concerned about it?

LoT wrote:

Quote

Further, he stated that the SV is not obliged to go to such a Mass and that he cannot merely passively resist the objectionable phrase ("saying that is the Priest's problem but not mine") but must actively resist it.

I agree that a Catholic is not obliged to go to "una cuм" masses, but that principle applies to all masses that are at private chapels. None of these chapels have been established by the Church, and with the exception of very few, these priests have not received approved seminary training and their training, education, and vocation have not been evaluated by the diocesan bishops in which they reside.

Catholics cannot be obliged to attend or support chapels or clergy that have no mission from the Church. A Catholic can choose to attend as it is prudent to attend the masses, but one is not obliged to attend.

Regarding resisting the name of the antipope, on that point, with respect to Fr. Stepanich, I remain unconvinced of his position at this time. I would have to see his specific reasons for claiming this prior to commenting further.

LoT wrote

Quote

This a paraphrase but I give you the general idea of what he said. After thinking about what that meant for a while, does it mean carrying a sign into Church saying I resist the objectionable phrase in the canon that is una cuм heretic I realized this probably meant that when following along in the missal I merely need to skip the name of the false pope.

It most likely means that you make an explicit resolve to not agree with with the naming of the antipope.

The following was posted by a Gladius Veritatis, Feb. 2, 2010.

Quote

He (Fr. Stepanich) has written some short comments, but I have never seen them online. I have them and will gladly send them to you.

He basically holds that it is permissible to assist at Mass una cuм Benedicto, provided such is the only option available.

Strangely enough, this is the second request for his comments that I have seen today.

SOURCE

Ambrose · « **Reply #4 on:** January 01, 2014, 12:37:14 PM »

LoT wrote:

Quote

I just want to make clear that I am speaking about the objective reality of assisting at a Mass where one knows it is being offered una cuм heretic. Why would an SV not care either way?

Does the naming of an undeclared heretical antipope in the canon, thereby make it schismatic? Even though, I disagree with Bp. Sanborn on this, he at least captures the true argument.

Every other point on this is emotionally based. This is the only question that matters.

Ambrose · « **Reply #5 on:** January 01, 2014, 12:38:44 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Again, if those (valid) masses were the only ones available would you both still avoid them? Or would you stay home? I'm not so sure I could do that.

I would go to the mass said by a validly ordained priest who has kept the Faith as a general principle.

Stubborn · « **Reply #6 on:** January 01, 2014, 12:42:12 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

To name a man who is certainly not Pope in the canon, for example the men you mention is to make a mockery of the canon, so I would most certainly avoid such a mass.

The issue we are faced with is this: Francis and his predecessors make a plausible claim to the papacy for most Catholics. All of the trappings are there: a conclave, cardinals to elect, white smoke, ceremonies, ecclesiastical garb, their control of the Vatican City and for that matter all of the material wealth of the Church, and most importantly, the apparent recognition of these men as popes by the hierarchy and the Roman Clergy, along with most of the world's Catholics.

I would argue that the remaining lawful hierarchy and Roman Clergy who have kept the Faith, therefore their offices, have not accepted the claims of these men to the papacy. I would base this on the fact that anyone who truly accepts their claim also follows them into heresy. To resist them in the powers of their office, in their authoritative teaching, and law, is to implicitly deny their claim, but that is matter for another discussion.

This conjecture, according to the law, does not allow for anyone to believe the pope is not the pope. As I have stated before, our knowledge of the pope's sins in no way qualifies us to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected.

Use Ibranyi as the perfect example. If it were up to him and his followers +100 years ago to determine whether or not to mention the name of Pope Leo XIII in the Canon, he would not mention it. Same goes for a bunch of other popes he can prove were anti-popes who lost their offices (if they ever held them to begin with). Now you can say he is a radical, a fool, an idiot - whatever - the fact remains that it is for this reason that Christ set up the Church as He did.

Thankfully, it was not left up to Ibryani or me or you or any priest or bishop, to determine if the election of the pope is valid, it was left up to the cardinals to elect one as successor of St. Peter. That is the way Our Lord setup the Church. We have no say in the matter - something we should rejoice over - not debate. Whether anyone of us likes it or not, according to the law, this is how the Church works regardless of what we know or think we know.

Then too, there's always the Encylical Ex Quo wherein Pope Benedict XIV repeats numerous times that it don't matter what anyone thinks, it is a sin to omit the name of the pope from the canon of the Mass.

Mind you he is specifically speaking to the Eastern Church - yet the one thing they had in common with SVs of today is that they too insisted that the pope was not the pope, yet Pope Benedict XIV pretty much repeated the same thing over and over stating: whoever omits the name of the pope from the Mass *for any reason* separates himself from the entire world.

Does it only apply to one set of beliefs but not the other? Does "for any reason" include the reign / election of a heretical pope? It certainly looks that way but who knows for sure? - either way it is worth considering before one concludes it within their rights and responsibility to make the final determination that the one elected as pope is not the pope.

It all really boils down to the question - does the fact that our knowledge of the pope's sins qualify us to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected? Personally, I do not see how that would qualify anyone.

Sedevacantism is a theological opinion based on one's own knowledge of the pope's sins. But the Mass not anyone's opinion and no one, certainly not a priest, has the right to change or omit a word of it no matter what they think.

StCeciliasGirl · « **Reply #7 on:** January 02, 2014, 03:21:56 AM »

Thank you for answering, Ambrose. A year ago today, my mom passed, and I never would have imagined we (my family) would be where we are now, with BXVI having resigned, and all that's happened since then. I found posts on a forum I'd forgotten about being part of before this date, but it wasn't a "Catholic" forum so much as a fan page

though I did love it: The Ratzinger Forum. There wasn't discussion of the Faith there so much as pictures of BXVI and stories from his early life. We were definitely "fans". (Yes, that is embarrassing, but trust, it wasn't like the women who are enarmored with a particular downtrodden priest who used to be part of EWTN... it was never like that at all. It was a study of Ratzinger, in forum form, and very strictly moderated if I recall.)

Anyway, while we don't attend a Mass with the una cuмs anymore, we don't find una cuм services/Masses illicit or invalid because of the una cuм. We just can't attend them and feel good about it. But still, I think I got more interested in this topic because of the claims that Father Kramer is now making with regard to BXVI being forced out of office, and his proof (which I haven't seen, btw), that's apparently caused a lot of talk. He said it was on suspice domine, but I simply haven't had time to look at all that. If there's already a thread here, please link me to it so I can get an overview!

Anyway, I agree with you about the state of the Church (it's disappearing, and that's okay because it was prophesied by +Jesus Himself). I'd also agree that more fraction is not what the Society (and Catholics in general) need right now.

But are you concerned at all that maybe some priests (SSPX and otherwise) might "go back" to una cuм Papa BXVI in their Mass? Do you think this thing might have legs?

Because as much as I would have wanted to hear what Fr. Kramer is saying in February of last year, and I even thought that same thing at that time, I fear that all this uproar over Frank v. BXVI might actually further divide the SSPX. I'm not sure Fr. Kramer has that much pull, but then again, David and Goliath...

Then today, I wondered what's happened in the past with ancient Pope/anti-pope divisions (like the Avigon Popes vs the Roman anti-popes), and I think I've changed my opinion based on that! That if a priest is trying his best to offer a valid Mass, and says the wrong guy, but in good faith, I don't think God would have been too offended with the people who, in the Middle Ages at least, were presented at Mass as praying with "thy servant and our Papa [whichever claimant the priest used]". Most of the laity were in no position to discern either way, or maybe even know of papal disputes. I can even imagine some kept using dead Popes because the news didn't travel fast.

I'll be frank (no pun intended): the SSPX drama was more than we could bear. The resistance simply isn't welcomed, and the paranoia was running high after Fall 2012. But we feel more comfortable where we are now (independent), though we do feel like we've abandoned the Indult (who themselves feel "abandoned" by Rome.) Ugh, this GUILT! No matter what, there's always this guilt. Part of me thinks we should be with the older SSPX parish and kicking up trouble (our mere presence, I fear). We're happier without the struggles, and being able to focus on the altar.

What Stubborn says is burning my ears, as well. Yes I went and read the bull. Part of me wants to say, Papa BXIV wasn't talking about Frank (a non-Catholic), and to remind Stubborn that we're all SVs between even uncontested papacies, and whenever there isn't a claimant, the una cuм is just left out. SVs who continue to leave that out are indeed just following their consciences. Frank's just not an issue for me, though. —strangely, BXVI mightbe.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #8 on:** January 02, 2014, 07:28:33 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

St Cecilia's Girl wrote:

Quote from: StCeciliasGirl
Quote from: Ambrose

I agree with you here. With the exception of one priest who was anti-sedevacantist, and made it a point to very loudly use the name of the anti-pope, I have never even heard the priest during this part of the canon.

I am not troubled by this issue anyway, as these antipopes remain uncondemned heretics, and the priests who are "in communion" with them are not heretics themselves.

This "una cuм" debate is a tree of rotten fruit, further dividing Catholics and is based on sophistry.

For those who insist on this view that mass "una cuм" the antipope is "objectively schismatic," please show me any mass in the world in 1966 that was not "una cuм Paulus". Was the universal Church in schism?

For those "sede" priests that insist on this view that these masses were "objectively schismatic," have you refunded the mass stipends you were given for the masses said before you realized this new truth?

You know, this is a solid question. I can't imagine the 1960s, and as a kid in the 80s nobody mentioned the guy in white. Looking back, I know now that many older priests were probably NOT "going with the flow" and just avoiding, waiting for the old fart to die and praying for better. (That's my take on it from a kid's POV in the 80s; I recall one priest, who didn't last long at the parish, said as much though. I liked that priest. And got in trouble for saying as much —though my mom had to stifle a giggle when I asked why he had to be sent away for being honest. Wojtyla was the only guy I knew, and like I've said, I really thought first was +Jesus, who built His Church on St. Peter, then "JP2" and I guess I thought Pope Clement was JP1. File under "Weird stuff kids think.") (And yes I always forgot poor Popes Linus and ?Anacletus). —But if I recall, I think my parents said we prayed FOR JP2 (they accepted him as Pope back then). At Mass, I mean. I think our nuns said that too. (I wasn't always the best student. I was in math and stuff, but maybe I acted up a little in other subjects. I certainly hadn't studied Latin yet.)

Time passed, and then BXVI (see, even now, I can't help it: LOVE this guy because it's written in my heart and mind that he changed from 1960s to his Papacy, and that he also battled evil in the Vatican), but I guess we don't think he was a validly elected Pope because the Cards who elected him were questionable, except Cardinal Arinze and a choice few others back then. I really thought BXVI was en route to putting the sword of truth through the bad mass ("ordinary form") and, at great cost of membership but great bounty of godliness, was going to be the next (oh it sounds so wrong to say now) Pope St. Pius X. For real. We believed that and we did rosaries for him and his protection and everything. We thanked God for him. And even now, I'm being turned a little tiny bit by Fr. Kramer regarding the circuмstances behind BXVI's "departure". Fr. K's very convincing.

I wish Fr. Kramer could convince my husband. As it stands, my husband believes, non-dogmatically but believes in his heart, that Pope Pius XII was God's last Vicar, and that he was who St. Pope Pius X spoke of prophetically: the Pope who would suffer much and be tortured. I've found videos on Pius XII's last days, and wonder what's possible. I know the Holy Father's body being defaced wasn't a good sign. Would I have questioned it back then? I'd like to think so, yes. My grandmother apparently did; and loudly; and left the conciliar church in the late 60s or early 70s with a smile on her face, while the rest of the family did not. (My g-ma ran to the SSPX later though, feeling sure God had provided as He'd promised, and remained SSPX until she passed in 2001).

But your question, if one in the 60s should have remained in a prayer service, Mass, rosary intention, etc, with someone like Montini being called God's servant and Papa, but all else being equal, is very good. I imagine my g-ma didn't know much about Montini until the changes trickled over here to America, and therefore she didn't storm away in the early sixties, but I'm not sure who knew what when, among the priests and laity (especially those in America). Daddy says priests and Bishops kept all those politics quiet back then (duh, guess they still do —except ones with the spirit of Elijah, going against the grain and calling people out. Preach, Fr. Kramer!)

I imagine the answer for back then would be that Catholic clergy and laity had no reason to doubt! If they'd never heard of "opening windows", and it sounded nice (sounds nice to me when I hear what they say, or read the way it was presented), and Roncalli and Montini were still great dressers (got to give them that!), I think in Catholics' hearts (where God judges), they were merely being obedient and praying with people they trusted, in what they believed was the Church, without knowing the details of the unraveling (eg, getting rid of the Oath Against Modernism in 1967, and I'm not sure that was even publicized).

It can be very hard to see the big picture when you're in the middle of it, but do we really have such an excuse?

My question to you in this long diatribe, sorry about that :) is if you would remain in a service/Mass that had "una cuм famulo tuo Papa nostro Joel Osteen..." or "una cuм Che Guevara" or whatever? Because I beamed when I heard "Papa Benedictus" and was thrilled, but I don't think, even if my husband suddenly said, "We're Frankists now!", that I could present myself and our children dedicated to God "una cuм famulo tuo" a guy I think is possibly of "the spirit of this world". It would feel sinful; I couldn't get past it now. To me it would feel like the prayer was saying:

Quote from: una cuм Frankus
Yes, God, remember this conciliar church that is waaaaay different from what Christ instituted in St. Peter, and grow it anyway, together with Your "servant," the Adversary, who we're supposed to avoid like the plague, and who has separated from Your One Holy Apostolic Church, and all his self-styled bishops who broke their vows to You, and all the clergy who rape kids and live openly sinful lifestyles.

Maybe I think about it too much, but it just feels wrong, even though that bit sounds like a throwaway quickie. I really don't think it's a throwaway; something you can cross your fingers through while it's being said. Because you're still presenting yourself through the whole thing with the bad guy who you're naming servant of God and Papa, knowing all we know. I've tried thinking of Frank as having dementia (which really puts an exclamation point on the depravity of the conclave), but after that beach ball, a line was crossed, imo. A giant fat black line that says "beyond this point there is no hope", or "this way to stampede the Blood of Christ!" Dementia just can't explain that. (And note, that's before the "gαy is okay!" stuff, aka "Who am I to judge." And the even worse stuff that followed World Corruption Day 2013.)

Yeah, I guess I think it's not only a big deal, but a real showstopper. :sad:

I agree, and your husband may be right that Pope Pius XII was the last Pope. For myself, I know he was the last certain Pope. I remain unsure of John XXIII, but I am certain that Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis were not Popes. John Paul I also remains a mystery.

SCG wrote:

Quote
My question to you in this long diatribe, sorry about that :) is if you would remain in a service/Mass that had "una cuм famulo tuo Papa nostro Joel Osteen..." or "una cuм Che Guevara" or whatever? Because I beamed when I heard "Papa Benedictus" and was thrilled, but I don't think, even if my husband suddenly said, "We're Frankists now!", that I could present myself and our children dedicated to God "una cuм famulo tuo" a guy I think is possibly of "the spirit of this world". It would feel sinful; I couldn't get past it now. To me it would feel like the prayer was saying:

To name a man who is certainly not Pope in the canon, for example the men you mention is to make a mockery of the canon, so I would most certainly avoid such a mass.

The issue we are faced with is this: Francis and his predecessors make a plausible claim to the papacy for most Catholics. All of the trappings are there: a conclave, cardinals to elect, white smoke, ceremonies, ecclesiastical garb, their control of the Vatican City and for that matter all of the material wealth of the Church, and most importantly, the apparent recognition of these men as popes by the hierarchy and the Roman Clergy, along with most of the world's Catholics.

I would argue that the remaining lawful hierarchy and Roman Clergy who have kept the Faith, therefore their offices, have not accepted the claims of these men to the papacy. I would base this on the fact that anyone who truly accepts their claim also follows them into heresy. To resist them in the powers of their office, in their authoritative teaching, and law, is to implicitly deny their claim, but that is matter for another discussion.

It is understandable and reasonable that clergy can err on the status of the antipopes good Faith. In our case, these antipopes have frequently masked their heresy in vague and complex wording so few are absolutely certain that they are heretics. Secondly, the status of the antipope remains undeclared by the Church, meaning a Pope has not yet bound the Church to the fact that these men are heretics and excommunicates.

The trouble we have in our dilemma is this: We do not have the voice of authority. Without a Pope to rule the Church, and very few legitimate diocesan bishops left, most of whom think they are retired anyway, we have no rulers, no shepherds taking charge.

In the interim, no one can take charge, because the mission to do that cannot be self-generating. This crisis is truly unprecedented. We are witnessing what looks like the apparent death of the Church, as it appears that all of the lawful successors of the apostles have either died or defected. It seems to me that this is our test, just as the apostles knew that Our Lord died on the cross, but still believed in Him, we must trust that the Church continues despite the appearances.

We must remain calm on the boat in the middle of the storm, knowing that Jesus Christ is still fully in control, and is permitting this for his own reasons. We must also know with certainty that in the world today there remains some or at least one successor of the Apostles, and at least one Roman Cleric. They will never all die or all fall away into heresy. The Church continues dramatically smaller, but fully intact.

BTW - I didn't down thumb you buddy. You are one of the many fine posters here that I have a lot of respect for.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #9 on:** January 02, 2014, 07:39:44 AM »

Again I want to clarify that just because, objectively, in the eyes of God, as a matter of fact, I am not and have not even insinuated that a Mass offered "together with" a heretic is illicit and invalid.

I wish people could detach themselves from the emotion of the subject and merely analyze the words written.

Which are that

1. Objectively

2. In the Eyes of God (who knows Bergi is a manifest apostate heretic, no mention of laypeople or priests here)

3. As a matter of fact

That in a Mass offered una cuм heretic has an objectionable phrase and in and of itself could be objectionable (objectively speaking, in the eyes of God and as a matter of fact).

This is true in 33 A.D, 1966 and today. Though the culpability of the Priests from 1966 to now has increased. Those who are willfully blind to the fact will have to answer those not culpably ignorant will not be held accountable.

That is not emotion. It is a basic response to the core of the issue.

Again, not saying if one can attend or not, and it should be obvious that I have not stated it is invalid or illicit.

I am saying it has an objectionable phrase in it (objectionable because it is offered in union with a heretic). And that if an SV has a choice (both Masses equally close to him) between that and one that does not contain an objectionable phrase should the choice of the SV be obvious?

I would be quite surprised if you do not grant the point Ambrose and if you don't you will really need to break it down for me so I can understand.