Author Topic: Una cuм Masses (Read 1597 times)

Centroamerica · « **on:** July 17, 2014, 07:43:38 AM »

Concerning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the "non una cuм" sedevacantist position, after the Episcopal consecrations of 1988; here is an excerpt from a conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre during a retreat preached to the sisters of Saint-Michel en Brenne, France, on April 1st, 1989 (AUDIO excerpt attached).

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Monseigneur-Lefebvre-et-lUna-cuм-Archbishop-Lefebvre-and-the-Una-cuм-Copy.pdf

"This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists... ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer "- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
6 minutes excerpt
... And then, he (Dom Guillou) goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous.. you know, this famous una cuм.., una cuм of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cuм? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel en Brenne). You say una cuм in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cuм summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer. 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!
Then he (Dom Guillou) had a note about that to clarify a little: "In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Batte, the UNA cuм or "in union with" of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction "and " reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.
Let us collect the chaff, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be "kept in the holy religion" the "holy orders" and "Apostolic Lord" himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLIcuм AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES IN SANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS."
It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said "There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility". So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.
Then we must not keep this idea which is FALSE! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, we no longer understand anything, we are completely desperate, we do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it."

PG · « **Reply #1 on:** July 17, 2014, 03:18:20 PM »

Yeah, I can name drop +Lefebvre for my cause as well. But, it needs to be said. Fr. Pfieffer and his followers about this una cuм are digging their own grave. Don't forget that Fr. Iglesias stated in a video interview after being conditionally consecrated by +Williamson that he did not believe that Francis is the Pope. Fr. Iglesias' was then recruited to the boston kentucky seminary to teach latin. His first few sermons were very sedevacantist in tone. Did he all of a sudden become an una cuм catholic to please Fr. Pfeiffer/have a roof over his head? No way. The una cuм's are just uncomfortable because they may be wrong(pride), and the times are changing. And, I am not a sedevacantist(I think it is an error). There is another stop between plenism and vacantism, where non una cuм catholics are more than welcome. There is a lot of room there. Fr. Pfieffer is going to publicly lose this one.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #2 on:** July 17, 2014, 03:57:30 PM »

I agree. I believe that the Archbishop makes a very good point. I think that the unity is definately an issue. Until, Bergoglio is declared an anti-pope, well I don't know. I'm undecided on this point. I don't think a priestly union should have some priests praying for Bergoglio, some for Benedict, and others for no one. It can cause problems. However, I have been favorable to the Masses of a resistance priest that does not mention the name in the Canon.

I think your statement that the times are changing is very correct. Maybe the first post-conciliar popes where legitimate but this crisis producing anti-popes is not something that is far from reality.

I did listen to the Spanish sermons of Fr. Iglesias in Kentucky. I agree with him. The problem is not sede vacantists, but the anti-Christs in Rome.

I think we share many of the same positions regarding these subjects.

MarylandTrad · « **Reply #3 on:** July 17, 2014, 09:16:03 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Concerning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the "non una cuм" sedevacantist position, after the Episcopal consecrations of 1988; here is an excerpt from a conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre during a retreat preached to the sisters of Saint-Michel en Brenne, France, on April 1st, 1989 (AUDIO excerpt attached).

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Monseigneur-Lefebvre-et-lUna-cuм-Archbishop-Lefebvre-and-the-Una-cuм-Copy.pdf

"This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists... ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer "- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
6 minutes excerpt
... And then, he (Dom Guillou) goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous.. you know, this famous una cuм.., una cuм of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cuм? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel en Brenne). You say una cuм in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cuм summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer. 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!
Then he (Dom Guillou) had a note about that to clarify a little: "In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Batte, the UNA cuм or "in union with" of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction "and " reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.
Let us collect the chaff, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be "kept in the holy religion" the "holy orders" and "Apostolic Lord" himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLIcuм AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES IN SANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS."
It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said "There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility". So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.
Then we must not keep this idea which is FALSE! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, we no longer understand anything, we are completely desperate, we do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it."

Yes Archbishop Lefebvre said sedevacantists were ridiculous in 1989. I have noticed many sedevacantists maliciously misrepresent the position of traditional leaders on sedevacantism. I remember reading sedevacantists say that Fr. James Wathen was a sedevacantist, only to do my own research and find that Fr. James Wathen firmly denounced sedevacantism many times. Sedevacantists would have you believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was on the edge of embracing sedevacantism, but then you look at his statements in 1989 and see that wasn't the case. Sedevacantists have also said that Bishop Castro de Mayer was a sedevacantist at the time of the consecrations, but I found out that isn't true either. A lot of misrepresentations coming from that camp.

2Vermont · « **Reply #4 on:** July 17, 2014, 09:28:17 PM »

Quote from: MarylandTrad

Quote from: Centroamerica
Concerning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the "non una cuм" sedevacantist position, after the Episcopal consecrations of 1988; here is an excerpt from a conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre during a retreat preached to the sisters of Saint-Michel en Brenne, France, on April 1st, 1989 (AUDIO excerpt attached).

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Monseigneur-Lefebvre-et-lUna-cuм-Archbishop-Lefebvre-and-the-Una-cuм-Copy.pdf

"This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists... ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer "- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
6 minutes excerpt
... And then, he (Dom Guillou) goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous.. you know, this famous una cuм.., una cuм of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cuм? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel en Brenne). You say una cuм in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cuм summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer. 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!
Then he (Dom Guillou) had a note about that to clarify a little: "In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Batte, the UNA cuм or "in union with" of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction "and " reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.
Let us collect the chaff, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be "kept in the holy religion" the "holy orders" and "Apostolic Lord" himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLIcuм AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES IN SANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS."
It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said "There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility". So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.
Then we must not keep this idea which is FALSE! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, we no longer understand anything, we are completely desperate, we do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it."

Yes Archbishop Lefebvre said sedevacantists were ridiculous in 1989. I have noticed many sedevacantists maliciously misrepresent the position of traditional leaders on sedevacantism. I remember reading sedevacantists say that Fr. James Wathen was a sedevacantist, only to do my own research and find that Fr. James Wathen firmly denounced sedevacantism many times. Sedevacantists would have you believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was on the edge of embracing sedevacantism, but then you look at his statements in 1989 and see that wasn't the case. Sedevacantists have also said that Bishop Castro de Mayer was a sedevacantist at the time of the consecrations, but I found out that isn't true either. A lot of misrepresentations coming from that camp.

That's funny. I read his statement to say that the una cuм issue was ridiculous not sedevacantists.

PG · « **Reply #5 on:** July 17, 2014, 09:46:08 PM »

It seems to me that trad ecuмenism does not work, there is so much that points to that. But, then we have figures like Fr. Pfieffer who is at the top of his lungs fronting anti tradecuмenism yet pro - organization while behind the scenes keeping a priest like Fr. Iglesias in his seminary. Fr. Pfieffer is the one chiefly facilitating this. I would much rather have separation(loose association being the next best thing), where we can more easily prevent undesirable events from happening(like +Williamson being on lockdown for years/being shown the door/+Tissier being on lockdown in chicago) when disputes arise. I don't want to see priests being left high and dry(whether they differ in opinion with me on the crisis in the church or not).

Centroamerica · « **Reply #6 on:** July 17, 2014, 10:41:40 PM »

He's not saying sede vacantists are ridiculous. He's speaking about maintaining order and unity despite one's position on the crisis. That is why the focus is on the una cuм principle.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #7 on:** July 18, 2014, 08:20:07 AM »

Sedevacantist prays for the wants and needs of Holy Mother the Church while others against the position pray for the needs of the Anti-Popes, no wonder there is a crisis.

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #8 on:** July 19, 2014, 07:11:53 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Sedevacantist prays for the wants and needs of Holy Mother the Church while others against the position pray for the needs of the Anti-Popes, no wonder there is a crisis.

I pray that Pope Francis is united with all true believers and professors of the Apostolic Faith. How would this not help Holy Mother Church? You have got this backwards Myrna.

Cantarella · « **Reply #9 on:** July 19, 2014, 07:40:22 PM »

Quote from: MarylandTrad

Yes Archbishop Lefebvre said sedevacantists were ridiculous in 1989. I have noticed many sedevacantists maliciously misrepresent the position of traditional leaders on sedevacantism. I remember reading sedevacantists say that Fr. James Wathen was a sedevacantist, only to do my own research and find that Fr. James Wathen firmly denounced sedevacantism many times. Sedevacantists would have you believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was on the edge of embracing sedevacantism, but then you look at his statements in 1989 and see that wasn't the case. Sedevacantists have also said that Bishop Castro de Mayer was a sedevacantist at the time of the consecrations, but I found out that isn't true either. A lot of misrepresentations coming from that camp.

Lefebvre warned in 1979 saying that:

Quote from: ALB

" The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one. . . . And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."