St Cecilia's Girl wrote:
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:
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:
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.
Topic: Mass Attendance Papacy and una cuм issues (Read 1567 times)