More senseless division. :facepalm:Dear Pax Vobis,
Dear Pax Vobis,Nevertheless he is still making senseless divisions.
Bishop Pierre Roy was ordained by Bishop Williamson and consecrated by Bishop Rodrigo da Silva. He is a true Roman Catholic Bishop.
"Bishop Pierre Roy: Bishop Lefebvre was non Una cuм in his last years: Una cuм Francis is deception"Just stop for a moment and think about this, Texana.
New video from St. AnthonyPaduaRadTrad on YouTube.
Nevertheless he is still making senseless divisions.Yes indeed.
“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
“I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
Just stop for a moment and think about this, Texana.
Here we are, over 30 years since the Archbishop died, and we are learning from one of the 'defectors' from the Archbishop's Society/Resistance, one who never knew the Archbishop; we are learning from him what no one until now ever knew???
The entire Society of the Archbishop, the bishops in whom he confided, the superior general, all the priests and the faithful - we have all been deceived???
Now I ask you, how likely is that?
I don't say that Rev Roy or Fr Epiney are deliberately distorting the truth, but certainly somewhere along the line there is a misunderstanding to say the very least.
Here we see, once again, a great testimony to the great churchman that was Archbishop Lefebvre: he attracts all, even those who hold different opinions from his - they want to see their beliefs justified by him, such a universally recognised good shepherd and saviour of the Church that he was.
The una cuм debate is a made up line-in-the-sand position and causes senseless division. There is no such thing as an una-cuм Trad. Or a non-una-cuм Trad. It’s a theological fairytale. And it’s pathetic.
What Bishop Roy stated about "non una cuм" does correspond with a certain pattern in Archbishop Lefebvre's manifest understanding of the Crisis.
Nice clickbait title, BTW.
What's next? Talking about "one weird trick"? or "10 Things Trads don't know. Number 7 will blow your mind!"
This.
I don't think Fr. Roy, who was ordained in what, 2012? has "discovered" such a thing that wasn't already common knowledge.'
Nice clickbait title, BTW.
What's next? Talking about "one weird trick"? or "10 Things Trads don't know. Number 7 will blow your mind!"
Nevertheless he is still making senseless divisions.
Texana, as a fellow (?) sedevacantist I do think your title was unnecessary/inflammatory. If we wish others to avoid similar, inflammatory anti-sede titles, we should do the same.Dear 2Vermont,
Having said that, I did see this interview elsewhere, and I do find it interesting.
Just stop for a moment and think about this, Texana.Perhaps it was a well-guarded "secret". ;)
Here we are, over 30 years since the Archbishop died, and we are learning from one of the 'defectors' from the Archbishop's Society/Resistance, one who never knew the Archbishop; we are learning from him what no one until now ever knew???
The entire Society of the Archbishop, the bishops in whom he confided, the superior general, all the priests and the faithful - we have all been deceived???
Now I ask you, how likely is that?
I don't say that Rev Roy or Fr Epiney are deliberately distorting the truth, but certainly somewhere along the line there is a misunderstanding to say the very least.
Anyone who is still making the argument, 30 years later, that "+ABL said this" or "+ABL wouldn't agree with that" is just living in the past. +ABL lived his life according to catholic principles. These principles still exist, won't change, and we can still apply them to our lives. We don't need +ABL's permission/condemnation to make decisions today. Some of the questions we are dealing with today are different than +ABL's time; most of the questions are the same.
How exactly does this represent "senseless division"? If anything, it's one more step toward everyone coming to a consensus that Jorge is not the pope. We have Bishop Williamson and Father Chazal very much warming up to the notion now.From someone who was there at the consecrations, I was told +de Castro Mayer didn't say that. It was more like "Peter, where art thou?". For me that sounds more like a lamentation for the state of the Church than outright concluding sedeism.
And this is not surprising at all. At the consecrations, reliable witnesses report that Bishop de Castro Mayer was going around telling people "We have no pope."
Two years earlier, +Lefebvre had said this:
He was such a great man, such a great SAINT...
To prove that +Lefebvre was the greatest saintly figure in the post-Vatican II (Traditional) Catholic Church, just look at how all sides are trying to get him on their side, "own" or "claim" him, even after his death?No, Unfortunately, fighting over +ABL’s legacy doesn’t prove his saintliness (which stands apart and on its own). Fighting over +ABL only proves that the warring factions in Traddom only want power, control and increased “market share”. It’s nothing more than this.
Someone made a great point in this thread, which totally vindicates my other thread "R&R had +Lefebvre. Who do the sedes got?"
To prove that +Lefebvre was the greatest saintly figure in the post-Vatican II (Traditional) Catholic Church, just look at how all sides are trying to get him on their side, "own" or "claim" him, even after his death?
You don't see this with any of the Sede bishops, not even +Thuc. You don't hear Indult/neo-SSPX/Resistance/Sede Catholics all trying to claim that they are the true followers of +Kelley or +Thuc.
But this DOES happen with +Lefebvre. Why? See what I mean? He was such a great man, such a great SAINT, that it really bolsters a position (group, etc.) to have +Lefebvre counted as your leader, founder, holder of your position, etc.
11 For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I give God thanks, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Caius; 15 Lest any should say that you were baptized in my name.
“I have always warned the faithful vis-à -vis the sedevacantists, for example. There, also, people say: “The Mass is fine, so we go to it.” Yes, there is the Mass. That’s fine, but there is also the sermon; there is the atmosphere, the conversations, contacts before and after, which make you little by little, change your ideas. It is therefore a danger and that’s why in general, I think it constitutes part of a whole. One does not merely go to Mass, one frequents a milieu.” Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 79, January/February 1991
I have never heard of any miracles performed during his life. Or maybe you experienced and apparition and was told he is in Heaven?
... he says he has *always* warned against sedeism.
That's an abject lie, and it's been exposed myriad times. But you keep grasping for straws to justify your heresies.Start here; Read the last interview ever recorded with Archbishop Lefebvre... Last Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre: What Catholics Beli (https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/last-interview-with-archbishop-lefebvre-1)eve (https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/last-interview-with-archbishop-lefebvre-1)
One quote translates to "always" only if you filter out the dozens of quotes where he says that he might have to become a sedevacantist, where he holds that sedevacantism is possible, or says that he doesn't say that one can't say he's not the pope, etc.
At least, that's how I found it. So you're the one with the "abject lie, and it's been exposed myriad times. But you keep grasping for straws to justify your heresies."
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
I know heroic virtue when I see it or read about it.
How many pre-Vatican II Catholic books have YOU read?
Indeed, you are an abject liar and a shameless Old Catholic heretic. For every anti-SV quote you can find a pro-SV quote, where he says it's possible, he may have to declare SV (after Assisi), that he doesn't forbid it, etc.Ha!
You can find evidence for "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist" and then evidence for "Marcel Lefebvre: Anti-Sedevacantist", just as you can find "Marcel Lefebvre: Resistance" and "Marcel Lefebvre: Neo-SSPX/Fellay". Every group cherry picks the quotes for what they want to hear and use him as a sock-puppet to broadcast their own opinons.Ya, but the main thing you need to accept is that in the last interview ever recorded with Archbishop Lefebvre, which was only a few months before he died, he condemned sedeism. No one is asking you to accept a lie, or go shoot the neighbor, so why don't you just accept this?
Poe Leo XIII saw what he saw and heard what he heard at the Tabernacle. Cardinal Manning in his writings knew what was coming. And Cardinal Rampolla,ha! a freemason. The jews made it to the top. Pius X knew what was to come. It was a matter of time, an imposter would take the seat. It is prophecy, it will happen. It is obvious, this man who claims to be a pope, is not catholic, and it shows so much!! What more does one think must be shown!!
IMO if Bishop Lefebvre were living today, he would say, what I warned you about and prophecy has warned, is with us. Knights of Satan.
I don't say that Rev Roy or Fr Epiney
It is obvious, this man who claims to be a pope, is not catholic, and it shows so much!! What more does one think must be shown!!
Ya, but the main thing you need to accept is that in the last interview ever recorded with Archbishop Lefebvre, which was only a few months before he died, he condemned sedeism. No one is asking you to accept a lie, or go shoot the neighbor, so why don't you just accept this?
There's a whole lot more to sedeism than a vacant chair, isn't there?
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
"I have always warned the faithful vis-à -vis the sedevacantists, for example. There, also, people say: “The Mass is fine, so we go to it.” Yes, there is the Mass. That’s fine, but there is also the sermon; there is the atmosphere, the conversations, contacts before and after, which make you little by little, change your ideas. It is therefore a danger and that’s why in general, I think it constitutes part of a whole. One does not merely go to Mass, one frequents a milieu.” Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 79, January/February 1991Here is that part of the interview per the drbo website:
So, Stubborn, what do you say of this quote from +Lefebvre?
+Lefebvre hereby affirms Vatican II ecclesiology and promotes Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" theology. After all, he did sign all the docuмents of Vatican II.
He didn't "condemn" anything. Can you read English? He said he warned against attending SV chapels, for unspecified reasons. He said in other quotes at the time that he had adopted a benefit-of-the-doubt stance, where he acted as if they were popes ... unless he couldn't do so.Nope.
So, Stubborn, what do you say of this quote from +Lefebvre?
+Lefebvre hereby affirms Vatican II ecclesiology and promotes Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" theology. After all, he did sign all the docuмents of Vatican II.
Stubborn, I'm still waiting for you to address this quote:He was wrong.
Agree or disagree? Was +Lefebvre right or wrong?
I have never heard of any miracles performed during his life. Or maybe you experienced and apparition and was told he is in Heaven?These are NOT necessary qualifications for sainthood. Never have been.
When one looks at the previous questions in the interview and the rest of ABL's answer to the immediate question, it is clear that ABL is talking about the mass of FSSP/the indults, NOT the mass of the sedevacantists.This is the snip from the original (https://laportelatine.org/formation/crise-eglise/ecclesiadeisme/mgr-lefebvre-ce-nest-plus-seulement-une-question-de-liturgie-qui-nous-separe-de-rome-mais-une-question-de-foi-janvier-fevrier-1991), which translates as I posted:
In fact, the "vis-a-vis" in Stubborn's quote is NOT in the link. In fact, with the original punctuation and without that phrase, ABL includes the sedevacantists as part of the "faithful".
These are NOT necessary qualifications for sainthood. Never have been.
This is the snip from the original (https://laportelatine.org/formation/crise-eglise/ecclesiadeisme/mgr-lefebvre-ce-nest-plus-seulement-une-question-de-liturgie-qui-nous-separe-de-rome-mais-une-question-de-foi-janvier-fevrier-1991), which translates as I posted:And yet right after that he says this:
Monseigneur – J’ai toujours mis en garde les fidèles par exemple vis-à-vis des sédévacantistes. Ils disent aussi : la messe est bien, nous y allons.
Oui, il y a la messe. Elle est bien, mais il y a aussi le sermon ; il y a l’ambiance, les conversations, les contacts avant et après, qui font que tout doucement on change d’idées. C’est donc un danger et c’est pourquoi d’une manière générale j’estime que cela fait un tout. On ne va pas seulement à la messe, on fréquente un milieu.
And yet right after that he says this:Proving what exactly vis-a-vis the sedevacantists?
Obviously, there are people who are attracted by the beautiful ceremonies who also go to Fontgombault, where the old mass has been revived. They find themselves in a climate of ambiguity that I think is dangerous. As soon as one finds oneself in this atmosphere, subject to the Vatican, ultimately subject to the Council, one ends up becoming ecuмenist.
Proving what exactly vis-a-vis the sedevacantists?I'm questioning the translation because it seems his main point is not about the sedevacantists, but about those who have the Mass, but are connected with Rome. That is what most of the interview is about.
I'm questioning the translation because it seems his main point is not about the sedevacantists, but about those who have the Mass, but are connected with Rome. That is what most of the interview is about.So, what alternative meaning do you propose for the first sentence besides warning the faithful about attending sedevacantist Masses?
So, what alternative meaning do you propose for the first sentence besides warning the faithful about attending sedevacantist Masses?I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. It just seems out of place given the gist of the whole interview. It's the only time sedevacantists are mentioned. Something is off to me.
No verified miracles are required for beatification and sainthood? Time to dispense with the Devil's Advocate, I guess.Verified miracles ARE required. That is not what you said.
Perhaps it was a well-guarded "secret". ;)Dear 2Vermont,
From someone who was there at the consecrations, I was told +de Castro Mayer didn't say that. It was more like "Peter, where art thou?". For me that sounds more like a lamentation for the state of the Church than outright concluding sedeism.Very well put, trento. Young Fr Thomas Aquinas (now Bishop) OSB, fellow Portuguese, accompanied Bishop de Castro Mayer to the Episcopal Consecrations. He has very clearly refuted this notion that Bishop de Castro Mayer was sedevacantist.
Generally, however, I see individuals attempting to use +Lefebvre as a sock-puppet for their own opinion, cherry-picking whatever quotes they feel serve that purpose while ignoring the ones that don't.I agree. But this interview with Bp. Roy may be a break from "generally." Bp. Roy seems very sincere and honest. We've all heard the sedevacantist charges made against a ++Lefebvre in the past. But this has the ring of truth. I'm prepared to believe it, i.e. that the Abp. was not including JP2 in his Masses before he died.
What I'm saying is that there is no way to declare he's a bona fide saint, which is what Matthew said - 'he's a great SAINT'. I'm not saying he was lacking in great virtue(s) or that he wasn't holy or heroic. If you agree verified miracles are required, then where are the required and verified miracles after his death?
Perhaps it was a well-guarded "secret". ;)Psst! (Archbishop Lefebvre to Fr Epiney) Pssst! Hey Abbe! Can you keep a secret? I have something to tell you. I never say una cuм. Funny, hey, after that conference I gave to the sisters at St Michel en Brenne. https://dominicansavrille.us/archbishop-lefebvre-sedevacantists/ Yeh, they really fell for it. Well how can I say una cuм when the so called Pope is a public manifest heretic? Don't tell Bergy (Fr Schmidberger) and the bishops, they would take it hard. By the way, have you got a spare room here, just in case?
"After his death" is an indeterminate period. As far as I know there has been no cause commenced to investigate his qualifications for sainthood. And who would be so unwise to do so in the present time? It would be a futile exercise. But Matthew is entitled to call him "a great saint". Ever heard of hyperbole?
Psst! (Archbishop Lefebvre to Fr Epiney) Pssst! Hey Abbe! Can you keep a secret? I have something to tell you. I never say una cuм. Funny, hey, after that conference I gave to the sisters at St Michel en Brenne. https://dominicansavrille.us/archbishop-lefebvre-sedevacantists/ Yeh, they really fell for it. Well how can I say una cuм when the so called Pope is a public manifest heretic? Don't tell Bergy (Fr Schmidberger) and the bishops, they would take it hard. By the way, have you got a spare room here, just in case?
“You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
...
“I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
That's a silly caricature. Archbishop Lefebvre early on, at the time of the Nine incident, told them that they didn't have to insert Wojtyla into the Canon but should keep their SV views to themselves, so this dichotomy between doing something privately vs. publicly announcing it has been there for some time, and perhaps he would have been doing the same thing. He could have just mentioned it to Father Epiney without the "Pssst!" nonsense, but then publicly continued acting as if he were the pope.Archbishop Lefebvre tolerated this attitude of these recalcitrant priests, provided they would agree not to be public about it, yet they did not keep their word, as the Archbishop told us, leading to the infamous exit of the nine in 1983.
Here again we see the distinction between privately believing it and saying it "formally and solemnly".
Dear 2Vermont,I don't have a Facebook account, so I can't view the link.
I think that you are on to something! Since I did not know anything about Fr. Pierre Epiney, research began. Please look at this post from fb. More than one bombshell enclosed:
https://www.facebook.com/102251001778877/posts/father-pierre-epiney-personal-confessor-and-close-friend-of-archbishop-lefefebvre-/3222113031161...
Since Fr. Epiney is the source of Bishop Roy's statement, we need to know more about him, don't you agree?
I agree. But this interview with Bp. Roy may be a break from "generally." Bp. Roy seems very sincere and honest. We've all heard the sedevacantist charges made against a ++Lefebvre in the past. But this has the ring of truth. I'm prepared to believe it, i.e. that the Abp. was not including JP2 in his Masses before he died.
I agree. But this interview with Bp. Roy may be a break from "generally." Bp. Roy seems very sincere and honest. We've all heard the sedevacantist charges made against a ++Lefebvre in the past. But this has the ring of truth. I'm prepared to believe it, i.e. that the Abp. was not including JP2 in his Masses before he died.I think it is possible. However, being privately non una-cuм is not the same thing as being publicly anti-una-cuм. I suspect that there are many non-sede priests who do this, especially with the latest papal fraud.
Archbishop Lefebvre tolerated this attitude of these recalcitrant priests, provided they would agree not to be public about it, yet they did not keep their word, as the Archbishop told us, leading to the infamous exit of the nine in 1983.
I think it is possible. However, being privately non una-cuм is not the same thing as being publicly anti-una-cuм. I suspect that there are many non-sede priests who do this, especially with the latest papal fraud.
Given Fr Epiney was his confessor, he may have had some heart-to-heart discussions outside of confession that Fr knew was to remain between the two of them....and kept it that way.
In fact, +Lefebvre implied that he had privately leaned SV for a long time in his “for twenty years we preferred to wait” comment.So he implied that he had privately leaned sede, but said that he always warned against it. Where do you come up with this, from other sedes?
So he implied that he had privately leaned sede, but said that he always warned against it. Where do you come up with this, from other sedes?
From his public statements, moron. So you explain what +Lefebvre meant by “for twenty years we preferred to wait before publicly declaring the See to be vacant”.Simple. He was waiting for the next pope to publicly declare the See to be vacant. It's not complicated.
Stubborn, I'm still waiting for your assessment of +Lefebvre statements that non-Catholics (even infidels) can be save and can be within the Church without even knowing it.Are you blind?
I'll answer it for you, because you lack the spine to do so, since it undercuts your use of +Lefebvre as your rule of faith. You hold that +Lefebvre's statement is erroneous and even objectively heretical, since it directly and verbatim denies EENS dogma.
But you lack the intellectual honesty and the fortitude to disagree with +Lefebvre, since that blows your entire tactic of using (and abusing) +Lefebvre as a promoter of your ecclesiological heresy.
I don't have a Facebook account, so I can't view the link.Dear 2Vermont,
All I know is that the leadership of the SSPX would not have the approval of Lefebvre if he were alive today.
I personally know SSPX priests who are about to step over the Sede line. Crazy times.
You missed the point, which was that +Lefebvre distinguished between privately holding the opinion (offering Mass “non una cuм”) and publicly (officially) saying it, which could account for him holding the line in public while privately concluding that the See was vacant. Avrille have made the same distinction, undoubtedly extending the same attitude of +Lefebvre.If +L was privately offering the "non una cuм" when lay Mass hearers assumed he was still doing it "una cuм," wouldn't that not have constituted a kind of deceit on the part of +L?
If +L was privately offering the "non una cuм" when lay Mass hearers assumed he was still doing it "una cuм," wouldn't that not have constituted a kind of deceit on the part of +L?
Catholics through all the generations of the Church have always believed that there are two ways for a pope to lose his office, 1) his death or 2) his resignation. This is what I believe. This is Catholic.With respect, you are making a strawman here. Even if a Pope cannot lose his Office due to heresy, a Pope losing his office is not the belief of all Sedevacantists. A significant portion believe that the election of Roncalli was invalid. Though, I am sure this is not news to you.
"Former FSSP Superior General Says Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist" (Aug.15, 2020)Excerpt from Archbishop Lefebvre Spiritual Conference at Econe, 1984:
"Fr. Joseph Bisig, co-founder and first superior of the FSSP (until 1988 he was a member of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X and knew Archbishop Levebvre(sic) well) said on November 24, 2018 during a lecture in Ottawa:" (1)
"Bisig said the unjust suppression of the flourishing seminary, which had 120 seminarians by 1977, and Pope Paul VI's subsequent suspension led to a change in Lefebvre's attitude towards Rome, and his language became increasingly "polemical." Lefebvre began to entertain sedevacantism, the idea that Paul VI was not the real pope, and thus the Chair of Peter was vacant, Bisig said. But the archbishop kept this opinion largely out of the public realm because most priests in the SSPX would have been scandalized. Until then it was forbidden for us to be critical of the Holy Father or Rome, Bisig said." (2)
With respect, you are making a strawman here. Even if a Pope cannot lose his Office due to heresy, a Pope losing his office is not the belief of all Sedevacantists. A significant portion believe that the election of Roncalli was invalid. Though, I am sure this is not news to you.Hello hgodwinson and welcome to the debate.
Incidentally, The Archbishop actually knew the principles involved with the “heretic pope question”. He knew that if JPII was, to his mind, a pertinacious heretic, he would have lost his “pontificate”. This is a fact. With Bergoglio on the scene, R&Rers, such as yourself, know that this Catholic doctrine is now provable, so now you needed to switch gears and deny the doctrine.
Unfortunately, we have some Old Catholics here posing as Catholics, so readers need to be aware.Agreed! You Old Catholic you!
Agreed! You Old Catholic you!
So, the fact that you have it exactly backwards is a window into how messed up your mind has gotten.Always remember:
Always remember:
Catholics through all the generations of the Church have always believed that there are two ways for a pope to lose his office, 1) his death or 2) his resignation. This is what I believe. This is Catholic.
If you remember this, you will be unable to believe there's any other way for a pope to lose his office without changing what Catholics believe.
On the other hand, as Hgodwinson points out, the reasons why Sedes believe the pope has lost his office are MANY. So it’s not like there’s a uniform explanation. A fact that many Sedes forget.
Tell that to St. Robert Bellarmine or to those who hold 4 of the 5 Opinions regarding that question. This is a disputed matter and your assertion that "what Catholics believe" is that minority opinion that was held by only 1 or 2 theologians tops (and now +Schneider) is absurd on the face of it. You're basically saying that Bellarmine, Cajetan, John of St. Thomas and others are not "Catholic", once again demonstrating that for you, Stubborn is the litmus test for what's "Catholic".No, what is Catholic is that which Catholics have believed always and everywhere, which is that there are two ways for a pope to lose his office, death and resignation.
"What Catholics believe" is what Archbishop Lefebvre articulated, namely, that the Papacy is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit and prevented from changing the Church so much that Catholics must sever communion with and subjection to the hierarchy in order to remain Catholics.
Stubborn, to be fair, every crisis/heresy in the church, throughout history, was a “first”. Just because something has never happened before, doesn’t mean it can’t happen. There’s no doctrine which says the pope can’t lose his office due to heresy. Only a “pious belief”.Sorry Pax, you say there is no doctrine, but I quoted what sedes believe is indeed "the doctrine" which was posted by a sede. Yes, there is no denying these are unprecedented times, but these times do not reward any of us the right to determine the status of popes - nor do we have any reason whatsoever to even attempt to do such an absurd thing.
On the other hand, as Hgodwinson points out, the reasons why Sedes believe the pope has lost his office are MANY. So it’s not like there’s a uniform explanation. A fact that many Sedes forget.
Conclusion- We live in unprecedented times. God has allowed this Tribulation to be (as Scripture says) the worst that has been, and will be. Let’s not draw lines in the sand on what God will/won’t allow. Whatever happens, however horrible, He will be with us. But we really don’t know His limits.
Yes, there is no denying these are unprecedented times, but these times do not reward any of us the right to determine the status of popes - nor do we have any reason whatsoever to even attempt to do such an absurd thing.
for the doctrinal rationale behind it, namely, the belief of Catholics that the Papacy is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit from damaging the Church this badly through the Magisterium, the Mass, etc. ... a principle upheld by Archbishop Lefebvre.Yes, this is a general principle, but it's too general. Which is why 1,000 people can apply it in a 1,000 different ways.
Yes, this is a general principle, but it's too general. Which is why 1,000 people can apply it in a 1,000 different ways.
Sorry Pax, you say there is no doctrine,There's not.
but I quoted what sedes believe is indeed "the doctrine" which was posted by a sede.This has nothing to do with my original point. Some sedes will believe in 1 explanation; others won't. But their conclusion could still be correct.
It's not too vague to hold that the Papal Magisterium, the Mass, canonizations, and Canon Law cannot become so corrupted by legitimate papal authority as to permit and even require Catholics to sever communion with the hierarchy.It's not that simple. The Conciliar Church has become corrupted; the True Church has not. Yes, it "appears" that the Papal Magisterium has become corrupt, but I would argue *technically* it isn't. Then we could argue about what "severing communion" even means. That implies a whole host of things which I would debate.
No, what is Catholic is that which Catholics have believed always and everywhere, which is that there are two ways for a pope to lose his office, death and resignation.Dear Stubborn,
St. Robert had his theological opinions which may or may not be right - which, as you are well aware, would not be the first time one of the great Fathers held a wrong opinion.
I'm pretty sure St. Robert did not consider the disunity among the faithful that is an unavoidable result of his opinion, but because we're living it, we should, and some of us do.
Dear Stubborn,Yep. And this is exactly what has happened. And God has allowed it.
If it is true that once a man is elected Pope, no matter what he does, he stays in the papal office until his death or abdication; as an enemy of the Church, all I have to do is to put my men on the Throne of Peter. I do it by using my organization to put them into the seminaries and begin climbing the ladder of the hierarchy. Eventually, I will have enough of them to elect not only the pope I need, but even more to follow. Then I put an antichrist to lead all the "catholics" under the banner of the Keys of Peter to their eternal damnation.
Dear Stubborn,That is, *IMO* pretty much what happened.
If it is true that once a man is elected Pope, no matter what he does, he stays in the papal office until his death or abdication; as an enemy of the Church, all I have to do is to put my men on the Throne of Peter. I do it by using my organization to put them into the seminaries and begin climbing the ladder of the hierarchy. Eventually, I will have enough of them to elect not only the pope I need, but even more to follow. Then I put an antichrist to lead all the "catholics" under the banner of the Keys of Peter to their eternal damnation.
There's not.We know there's not, but the sedes insist it is a de fide doctrine. Which is why it has everything to do with your original point. In short, their doctrine consists of heretical pope = no pope, after that there are many variables.
This has nothing to do with my original point. Some sedes will believe in 1 explanation; others won't. But their conclusion could still be correct.
In short, their doctrine consists of heretical pope = no pope,Even though they could be correct, it's still not a doctrine. And it's overly-simplistic.
To them it is a vital and most necessary part of the faith.Right, and this is where the extremism comes into play.
Dear Stubborn,There's no "if" about it, it is true, because this (pope's death or abdication) is what all Catholics have always believed, this is what makes it true without any papal declaration saying it, it is this that makes the belief itself Catholic. This is what St. Vincent of Lerins' teaching is about.
If it is true that once a man is elected Pope, no matter what he does, he stays in the papal office until his death or abdication...
Yep. And this is exactly what has happened. And God has allowed it.
Even if every Trad on earth became Sede today...what does that solve? Nothing. All Sedeism does is say that the Throne of St Peter is not occupied by a Catholic, but by a usurper. What then? Does Sedeism solve the LARGER issue of indefectibility? No. How could God allow a usurper to gain the papacy? Isn't this a theological problem too? Yes. Does Sedeism solve this? No. Does Sedeism explain how God could allow the V2 church to "eclipse" (to use Our Lady of LaSalette's words) the True Church? No.
So let's not pretend that the papacy is the ONLY issue/mystery/problem of this present crisis. It's one of many, many problems.
Sedeism is an explanation (a partial one at that), not a solution.
Pax. Jesus, St. Paul and St. John warned specifically about "the False Prophet," the "man of sin," the Son of Perdition." Why? Because he, that specific man, is the key sign of the end times. And he, that specific man, is the person who will "deceive even the elect."Christ also warned us of (the many) "wolves in sheep's clothing". These men have to be avoided too. The point being, we avoid heretics. All of them. False Prophet or not. Sedeism solves nothing. We have to be wary of heretics in all areas of life.
Sacred Scripture tells us to focus on this specific man, so that we can avoid his influence and be delivered from his deception which will lead many to Hell.
Christ also warned us of (the many) "wolves in sheep's clothing". These men have to be avoided too. The point being, we avoid heretics. All of them. False Prophet or not. Sedeism solves nothing. We have to be wary of heretics in all areas of life.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. 5 Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, 9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, 10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:11 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.
Hello hgodwinson and welcome to the debate.I don't mean to sound like a broken record but, many people, myself included do not believe a particular Pope ever lost any office. Just that Roncalli never gained the Office in the first place. So I am seeing a disconnect between your arguments and this specific position I put foreward. Your arguments are against Sedes who believe a particular V2 Pope lost his office, not against the the "invalid election" argument. Perhaps I am missing something.
The idea of believing in an invalid election, like believing in the pope is not the pope, is only opinion. That's all it is.
Like +ABL saying one day we may say the pope is not the pope - that was his opinion at that time. Like the saints and fathers who taught a heretic pope loses his office, this was their opinion at that time. The whole idea of sedeism is nothing more that opinion that among many, has morphed and been elevated into a de fide doctrine of the Church - without the Church ever having believed or taught it.
A lot of crazy thinking is corrected by clear challenges, and there have been many, many challenges that have been presented to the sedes for their consideration right here on CI that either go unanswered or are completely ignored, such as the post you replied to - presumably because there is no getting around the truth of it, and in order to wholly accept that truth, the sede belief is threatened. So it is another challenge placed into the ignored-by-sede file, which is a huge file btw.
After posting this, and to show you what I mean in reference to the underlined above, here is a quote by a sede from another sede thread....
I don't mean to sound like a broken record but, many people, myself included do not believe a particular Pope ever lost any office. Just that Roncalli never gained the Office in the first place. So I am seeing a disconnect between your arguments and this specific position I put foreward. Your arguments are against Sedes who believe a particular V2 Pope lost his office, not against the the "invalid election" argument. Perhaps I am missing something.As I said, the idea of believing in an invalid election, like believing in the pope is not the pope, is only opinion. I'm saying your belief is only opinion because we don't know what goes on behind closed doors, we certainly don't know what went on in the minds of all the cardinals in the conclave.
A papal conclave took place from 25 to 28 October following the death of Pope Pius XII on 9 October 1958. On the eleventh ballot, the College of Cardinals elected Cardinal Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli as the new pope. He accepted the election and took the name John XXIII.What do you believe went on in the conclave for those 3 days? Honest question.
Agreed that "sedeism" (as some kind of human ideology) solves nothing. But if someone thinks it's no big deal to God to think the "man of Sin" is the real Pope of HIS HOLY CHURCH, then I think that person is going to experience what St. Paul called "the operation of error." And he are going to bring it down on himself because, through hard-headedness, he refused to listen to the charitable warnings of fellow Catholics:But now you are ignoring the words of Our Lord who said: "Beware of false prophets..."
Bergoglio is the "man of sin." He is the "man, not canonically elected, raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death," that St. Francis Of Assisi warned about. And those who continue to act as if he is the Vicar of Christ are helping him "draw many into error and death." That is a scandal.
Agreed that "sedeism" (as some kind of human ideology) solves nothing.
No one says that "sedeism" solves the Crisis in the Church. What this is about is doctrine, what people believe about the Church and the papacy. Those who hold the opinion that the Papacy can corrupt the Magisterium, the Mass, produce a plethora of bogus canonizations (despite the solemn formula used) ... are slouching inexorably toward Old Catholicism and are destroying Tradition while pretending to preserve it, exactly as the Old Catholics did. They too claimed that they rejected Papal Infallibility because it was "contrary to Tradition". Some R&R are throwing the Church under the bus in order to salvage nothing more than a guy walking around Rome in a white cassock. This is what the battle is about. As I said, if it were a question of Bergoglio adhering to heresy as a private person, who cares? Let the Cardinals deal with him. Not my problem. But the V2 Antipopes have made it our problem, because there can be no salvation without subjection to the Roman Pontiff (defined dogma) ... and, no, Bergoglio's picture in your chapel vestibule doesn't count.This from the guy who has said that if you believed the pope was the pope, you'd go back to being NO.
This from the guy who has said that if you believed the pope was the pope, you'd go back to being NO.
That's why it's obvious that the V2 papal claimants are not popes. Follow along please. Your heresy is in claiming that the two can be true at the same time, that the Catholic Church can be transformed into something that's so un-Catholic that we must remain separated from it and that a legitimate Pope produced such a radical transformation. This is exactly what the Prots claimed too, that the Church had been corrupted. You've become nothing more than a blend of Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Old Catholic ... and have ceased to profess the Catholic faith ... on account of your assertion that the Papacy and the Church can corrupt the faith, that the Magisterium and Mass can become corrupt.Yes, you continue to make the same false assertions based on your higher NO understanding.
Yes, you continue to make the same false assertions based on your higher NO understanding.If the Catholic Church can never "be transformed into something that's so un-Catholic that we must remain separated from it", then why has the SSPX separated from it and built a parallel church alongside the Catholic Church and against the will of the men they claim as popes?
The Catholic Church, which is Christ, can never "be transformed into something that's so un-Catholic that we must remain separated from it." You need to stop preaching that manure.
The pope can do whatever he wants - except for when he is divinely protected from preaching error, which is whenever he speaks ex cathedra.
Beyond that, the pope is a man, not impeccable and not a man-god you want him to be.
If the Catholic Church can never "be transformed into something that's so un-Catholic that we must remain separated from it", then why has the SSPX separated from it and built a parallel church alongside the Catholic Church and against the will of the men they claim as popes?
Is Vatican II Catholic or not?
Those who hold the opinion that the Papacy can corrupt the Magisterium, the Mass, produce a plethora of bogus canonizations (despite the solemn formula used) ... are slouching inexorably toward Old Catholicism and are destroying Tradition while pretending to preserve it, exactly as the Old Catholics did. They too claimed that they rejected Papal Infallibility because it was "contrary to Tradition". Some R&R are throwing the Church under the bus in order to salvage nothing more than a guy walking around Rome in a white cassock.I agree with the logic, but it's not perfect.
If the Catholic Church can never "be transformed into something that's so un-Catholic that we must remain separated from it", then why has the SSPX separated from it and built a parallel church alongside the Catholic Church and against the will of the men they claim as popes?The conciliar church of V2 is not the Catholic Church. The SSPX is separated from the conciliar church, not the Catholic Church, for now at least.
Is Vatican II Catholic or not?
Dear Stubborn,You take the word "subject", Texana, without understanding what it means. You imagine it means slavish obedience. A good subject, whether of the Pope, the King, or of his parents, knows how to practice true obedience. When St Paul withstood St Peter to his face, he was being a true and faithful subject.
Pope Boniface VIII, in the Bull "Unam Sanctam", clearly states that every human creature is subject to the Roman Pontiff. No matter what one does or says, that fact remains unchanged. Even if one realizes that a particular pope is not the pope; even if someone becomes an apostate, heretic schismatic, an atheist, buddist, hindu etc. We are always subject to the pope even at the time of interregnum. No one can choose not to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. It is safe to discuss the legitimacy and validity of the reigning pope. One cannot not be subject to the pope.
“They cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation...” (Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicuм, Vol. VII, n. 398.)
“Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Szal, Rev. Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p. 2.)
“Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao].” (de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8.)
There's formal subjection to the Supreme Pontiff and material subjection. What's required is formal subjection. You can remain formally subject even while remaining materially not subject. Examples include interregna, or the Great Western Schism (for those who picked an Antipope to be subject to due to material error), or individuals who, say, lived in remote lands in the past and who had no idea who the pope was at any given time. Those are some who are materially subject, i.e. go to their parishes but have no intention of being subject to the Pope (there are many Conciliarists who fall into this category).The same old Ladislausian doctrine in place of Catholic doctrine.
Sedevacantists remain formally subject to the Supreme Pontiff:
R&R are skating on incredibly thin ice. Unless they at least harbor some doubts about the legitimacy of the papal claimants (which many of them secretly ... or publicly ... do, as was the case with +Lefebvre, for instance), they're in grave danger.
Note that isolated acts of disobedience are not inherently schismatic, but there's a fine line between disoebeying here or there and what R&R are doing, claiming that it's OK to set up chapels, Mass centers, administer Sacraments, etc. ... outside of communion with the Holy See and in a way where they do not report to him. It's one thing to occasionally and disrespectfully reject a questionable papal teaching, from within the Church, and quite another to completely ignore everything one of these "popes" teaches and commands, and adopt the attitude of "There goes that joker Bergoglio again with yet another trash Encyclical." Isolated acts of disobedience are one thing, while chronic disobedience, setting up your own chapels in a parallel church, is another thing entirely ... which is where your danger lies. Note Father Szal's having used "refuses obedience" as synonymous with not being subject to. What he means is a chronic attitude of disobedience, and not isolated acts of disobedience, but at some point the instances of disobedience cross over from a collection of instances of disobedience (difference in degree) to a chronic attitude of disobedience (difference in kind), and generally creating a parallel church very often is the litmus test for this chronic condition (vs. accuмulated acts of disobedience).
Many R&R skate on extremely thin ice and need to examine their consciences. Putting Jorge's picture up in your vestibule does not save you, nor does simply paying lip service to him, "Yep, that's the pope over there, but we're just going to do our own thing here." Many of you are also in objective/material heresy, and need to pray to be snapped out of it. I've long urged the R&R to have a look at and prayerfully consider Father Chazal's position, which avoids this problem, as it may save your souls.
You take the word "subject", Texana, without understanding what it means. You imagine it means slavish obedience. A good subject, whether of the Pope, the King, or of his parents, knows how to practice true obedience. When St Paul withstood St Peter to his face, he was being a true and faithful subject.Dear Plenus Venter,
Holy Scripture commands you to "be subject to every human creature for God's sake" (1Pet 2:13-16). Try explaining that with you false notion of subject...
And again, St Paul addressing us all: "Let everyone be subject to higher authorities: for there exists no authority but from God... therefore he that resisteth the authority, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation" - Rom 13:1-2
So there you go, we must just follow every higher authority no matter what they do or say... unless it is something evil in which case you hold the authority just ceases to exist? That is a novel doctrine.
Because it is in his office as Pope that we must be subject to him, not in his private errors...
Very private errors indeed.You don't understand how theologians use the term.
You don't understand how theologians use the term.
I think that SSPX deny the premise that it could be transformed into something so un-Catholic that we must remain separated from it. neo-SSPX have gone the next step of claiming it's 95% Catholic and trying to quantify it now. Either it has the notes of the Catholic Church or it does not. +Lefebvre said it didn't.
This rite in itself does not profess the Catholic Faith as clearly as the old Ordo Missae and consequently it may promote heresy....What is astonishing is that an Ordo Missae that smacks of Protestantism and therefore favens haeresim [is promoting heresy] could be promulgated by the Roman Curia."[1]
Dear Stubborn,Yes, of course we must be subject to the pope in order to attain salvation - this is dogma.
Pope Boniface VIII, in the Bull "Unam Sanctam", clearly states that every human creature is subject to the Roman Pontiff. No matter what one does or says, that fact remains unchanged. Even if one realizes that a particular pope is not the pope; even if someone becomes an apostate, heretic schismatic, an atheist, buddist, hindu etc. We are always subject to the pope even at the time of interregnum. No one can choose not to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. It is safe to discuss the legitimacy and validity of the reigning pope. One cannot not be subject to the pope.
We accomplish this re: my sig ...
Yes, of course we must be subject to the pope in order to attain salvation - this is dogma.Well said, Stubborn.
We accomplish this re: my sig, and putting my sig to use, we repeat the example given us by St. Thomas More, we say: "We are the pope's good subject, but God's first."
This is not only *not* the least bit complicated, this is fully Catholic. And this is not only *not* impossible, it is "absolutely necessary" according to the above dogma.
For us subjects, it's a win/win whether he is pope or not, which IMO, cannot be said for sedeism.
If he ever commands something of us we can do without offending God, we will do it.
:laugh1:FYI professor, we are not the ones setting up a parallel church or only paying lip service, you need to look in the mirror to see who is doing that.
No, you accomplish this by not setting up a parallel Church. Lip service and your "sig" don't count.
Well said, Stubborn.Well said - again PV!
What better example could we cite in this crisis of a true subject of the Pope than Archbishop Lefebvre.
As Bishop Williamson has so often explained, it is the same mistaken notion of 'subject' and Papal Infallibility that is at the root of both conciliarism and sedevacantism.
Those in the conciliar church say 'the Pope said it, therefore it must be true, we must obey in order to be subject to the Pope'.
The sedevacantist sees that the error or evil coming from the Pope is not Catholic and concludes 'he can't be pope'.
Neither is Catholic teaching. We don't find such a doctrine anywhere in antiquity, a subject declaring the authority to have ceased to exist, because of an abuse of that authority.
But we do find the Catholic doctrine of resisting evil authorities, of obeying God rather than men.
... the Siri Thesis, a thesis which I have commented before is patently ridiculous. Siri was a Cardinal who never attached his name to the Ottaviani Intervention, never, as far as we know, condemned the Novus Ordo Missae, and never defended his "papacy." Why hold onto the Siri Thesis? It seems more plausible to say that the Church has been without a pope for over sixty years than to defend the Siri Thesis. Overturn my objections to the Siri Thesis and I will gladly abandon course.
But as to the Sede obsession, it seems to me that the only real issues are: avoid the NO Mass because it is sinful; tell others that they must become Catholic if they ask, because there is no salvation outside the Church; and receive valid sacraments from a valid priest/bishop. Anything outside of this seems to us a distraction. And besides, who in this Forum really believes that were Bryan Shepherd to die today that God would send him to hell because his attitude is, "Hell, I do not know if Francis is pope or not, and do not really at this point care, and as long as he acts like a heretic I am not going to do what he says anyway." And then God says, "Oops Bryan, you screwed up, I gotta send you Hell, you got the whole Francis question wrong!" This is totally ridiculous, making a monster out of God.
1327. The sin of carelessness about the service of God is also known as tepidity or lukewarmness. It consists in a want of fervor, and causes one to live in spiritual languor, wishing on the one hand to live holily and avoid sin, but fearing on the other hand the effort and generosity required for the practice of virtue and the struggle against evil. It is, therefore, most dangerous.(a) Even if it is only internal, it may be more dangerous to the one concerned than grave sin itself, since threats and promises that move a sinner are often unavailing with one who is tepid and moving on to grave sin. Thus, we read: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would that thou wert cold or hot. But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth” (Apoc., iii. 15, 16).(b) If it is external, this sin is a danger to others who witness the disrespectful way in which one prays or exercises other duties owed to God.
to "not care" about whether a papal claimant is the true Pope is a serious problem. Here is how the "sin of carelessness" is explained in the Moral Theology (https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/35354/pg35354-images.html)::facepalm: This has NOTHING to do with carelessness. No one who is a layperson can determine who is/isn't the pope. And the only clerics who can determine such are the Cardinals, per canon law.
:facepalm: This has NOTHING to do with carelessness. No one who is a layperson can determine who is/isn't the pope. And the only clerics who can determine such are the Cardinals, per canon law.
You can pretend to be a canon lawyer all you want (even though Halloween is over), but please stop acting like the laity's opinion has any weight or changes anything. It doesn't.
It has everything to do with the quote I provided. Not caring who the legitimate Roman Pontiff is at any given moment is to effectively deny his importance to the unity of the Church.Nonsense! Until the dawn of modern communication, certain knowledge of the name of a reigning Roman Pontiff rarely existed beyond the duchies and city-states of Italy as well as regal capitals and primatial sees of western Europe. Most bishops and priests would mention the name of the last pope whom they had been told is reigning who was often already dead and succeeded. The operative principle is union with the Office of Peter, then union with the occupant of that office insofar as that can be known.
Not caring who the legitimate Roman Pontiff is at any given moment is to effectively deny his importance to the unity of the Church.:facepalm: In the context of the present day crisis, your comments are laughable. We aren't living in normal times.
Nonsense! Until the dawn of modern communication, certain knowledge of the name of a reigning Roman Pontiff rarely existed beyond the duchies and city-states of Italy as well as regal capitals and primatial sees of western Europe. Most bishops and priests would mention the name of the last pope whom they had been told is reigning who was often already dead and succeeded. The operative principle is union with the Office of Peter, then union with the occupant of that office insofar as that can be known.
13 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.
Intrate per angustam portam : quia lata porta, et spatiosa via est, quae ducit ad perditionem, et multi sunt qui intrant per eam.
14 How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!
Quam angusta porta, et arcta via est, quae ducit ad vitam : et pauci sunt qui inveniunt eam!
:facepalm: In the context of the present day crisis, your comments are laughable. We aren't living in normal times.
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would that thou wert cold or hot. But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.
If Fr. Epiney and Bishop Roy are telling the truth, that means that any priest or Bishop of the SSPX or the Marian Corps (Resistance) should be free to make the decision on "una cuм" according to his conscience and his knowledge of the Crisis. He should certainly not be expelled from the Society or the Resistance for following their Founder's example!!Fr. Epiney and Bishop Roy are *not* telling the truth. Personally I believe they are repeating a lie they think is the truth. IMO, the reason they think it's the truth is because they think nothing of omitting the name of the pope in the Canon of the Mass themselves and have convinced themselves it is actually a sin to do so.
Fr. Epiney and Bishop Roy are *not* telling the truth. Personally I believe they are repeating a lie they think is the truth.However, it was my understanding that Fr Epiney heard it directly from ABL. Having said that, I'm just not sure what to make of it.
Fr. Epiney and Bishop Roy are *not* telling the truth. Personally I believe they are repeating a lie they think is the truth.
I want to retract my earlier posts because I have seen some other quotes post-1988 that would seem to suggest that ABL wouldn't say the mass non una cuм. However, I don't rule out the possibility that he did it privately but still held it was a position that should remain private.
If a sede priest says mass una cuм, it’s not a mortal sin. And vice versa. The whole debate over this prayer is the dumbest, most fabricated, most outlandish nonsense I’ve ever heard.Amen to that! I have a feeling some of the people in this thread probably make monthly visits to the local ordinary- a man who most probably hates the Latin Mass, in addition to a man who has covered up multiple crimes in his diocese- and says to him, "My lord bishop, I need to go to the Latin Mass, may I have your permission? Do you mind if I put up your heretical picture in my church? I will be sure to mumble your name in the Canon of the Mass as I kneel in the pew."
Fr. Epiney and Bishop Roy are *not* telling the truth. Personally I believe they are repeating a lie they think is the truth. IMO, the reason they think it's the truth is because they think nothing of omitting the name of the pope in the Canon of the Mass themselves and have convinced themselves it is actually a sin to do so.Dear Stubborn,
+ABL certainly understood that per Quo Primum and since Quo Primum, no priest (or bishop or pope) is free to choose which parts of the Roman Liturgy he wants to add or omit in the Canon of the Mass.
Priests, because they have knowledge of the crisis does not mean their knowledge qualifies them to choose to omit the name of the pope in the canon of the Mass, because the Church teaches that to do so is an act of schism, it is at the very least certainly breaking the Church's Law on the Roman Liturgy. But what they do not grasp is that the Mass not theirs and they are not permitted to change one word of it - period, lex orandi lex credendi.
+ABL knew he had no right to change a word of it and never did - they don't/can't/won't grasp this. I think by omitting the name of the pope, they changed their lex orandi, which gives them the lex credendi they have now.
If a sede priest says mass una cuм, it’s not a mortal sin. And vice versa. The whole debate over this prayer is the dumbest, most fabricated, most outlandish nonsense I’ve ever heard.
By the way, your statement that Fr. Pierre Epiney, who is the primary source of information, is "repeating a lie" is a defamation of a very holy priest, unless you have specific proof to the contrary. Bishop Pierre Roy, ordained by Bp. Williamson and consecrated by Bp. de Silva, who was ordained to the Priesthood by Bishop Williamson in 2017, is a valid Roman Catholic Bishop. We owe him at least the benefit of the doubt that he would not disseminate disinformation.
Casting doubts on the name, character, and reputation of true priests and bishops carries a heavy burden of proof for a lay Catholic.
One does, however, incur anathema by putting the name of St. Joseph to an unchangeable Canon of the Mass. Pope John XXIII is under anathema of Trent and the wrath of Sts. Peter and Paul of Quo Primum.You don't know what you're talking about. The original edition of the 62 missal, the one approved directly by J23 does NOT have the addition of St Joseph. It was after this missal was approved, that the liturgy was handed off to a commission/committee, and then from 62 to 65, there were constant and repeated updates to the missal, until the 65 missal came out, which was then revised very soon after that.
This is the problem with the 1962 MissalThere is nothing wrong with the 62 missal, original edition. Most clerics knew the addition of St Joseph was done by a committee vs the pope, which is why they had no problems ignoring the St Joseph change.
Casting doubts on the name, character, and reputation of true priests and bishops carries a heavy burden of proof for a lay Catholic.No, the burden of proof is on these clerics for making such a statement, nearly 30 years after +ABL is dead.
No, the burden of proof is on these clerics for making such a statement, nearly 30 years after +ABL is dead.
There are a handful of dogmatic non-una-cuм types out there, but most are not.At this point in time, I think the dogmatic types are far, far in the majority. This is based on my experience on this site, as well as personal experience with relatives/friends who have cut themselves off from other Trads.
What's under discussion is the implication that +Lefebvre may have gone sedevacantist before he died.:laugh1: I've never met +ABL, but i've read enough of his quotes to know that anyone who claims he did x but not y, and never flip-flopped, is just sadly mistaken and doesn't understand +ABL's character. His quotes are all over the place; he gave so many sermons and he had the ability to entertain a variety of viewpoints, while taking his time to make a decision. He was a philosopher of sorts; a great thinker. He was not a "yes, yes, no, no" type of person; not impulsive (and I mean that in a positive way).
At this point in time, I think the dogmatic types are far, far in the majority.
False. They don't have to prove anything.Of course they do. They are putting forth a viewpoint that attempts to change people's perceptions and actions, in the religious/theological realm. They aren't simply writing a history book, and passively putting an idea out there. They are ACTIVELY trying to engineer social change, in the realm of Traditionalism. This is another attack on the sspx, pure and simple. Personally, I don't care about the sspx. But their actions are propaganda.
CMRI, SSPV are not dogmatic anti-una-cuм.Maybe "on paper" they aren't dogmatic about it. But the stories I hear, directly from individuals who attend these chapels, is that this topic is talked about A LOT. And many laity absorb these "talking points" and apply them in their lives, against una cuм Trads, with disasterous results. Fr Jenkins' chapels included.
This isn't about whether (una cuм is) sinful.It's precisely about the aspect of sin. Una cuм is a made up 'litmus test' whereby *many* Sede clerics impose their view, either directly or indirectly, to get the laity to avoid non-Sede chapels. They imply that use of 'una cuм' is sinful and heretical, just the same as many, many on here call other non-Sede Trads 'heretic' all the time.
However, it was my understanding that Fr Epiney heard it directly from ABL. Having said that, I'm just not sure what to make of it.The interview begins by saying: "Fr. Epiney told me personally, so many times that after the 1988 consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre would not anymore mention the name of John Paul 2 in the Canon of the Mass. So you know, I'm not lying about this, I have no reasons to believe that Fr. Epiney lied about it, and that's what he told me multiple times." He goes on to say he believes it because he believes it came to a head and finally hit +ABL after the 1988 consecrations.
I want to retract my earlier posts because I have seen some other quotes post-1988 that would seem to suggest that ABL wouldn't say the mass non una cuм. However, I don't rule out the possibility that he did it privately but still held it was a position that should remain private.
”… And then, he (Dom Guillou O.S.B. 2 (https://dominicansavrille.us/archbishop-lefebvre-sedevacantists/#sdfootnote2sym)) 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..."If you read the link, you will find that +ABL continues on to explain what the prayer actually does mean. NOTE: Whether or not sedes agree it means what +ABL says it means does not matter, what matters *in this case* is that *he believes it,* and is on that account he never could have said the Mass non-una cuм, not ever.
"Then we must not keep this idea which is FALSE! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, people no longer understand anything, they are completely desperate, they do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it."What the bishop in the video is saying and apparently believes, is that +ABL includes himself among those poorly instructed and poorly taught who believe in a false idea. And that +ABL himself no longer understands anything, is completely desperate and does not know what to expect.
Maybe "on paper" they aren't dogmatic about it. But the stories I hear, directly from individuals who attend these chapels, is that this topic is talked about A LOT. And many laity absorb these "talking points" and apply them in their lives, against una cuм Trads, with disasterous results. Fr Jenkins' chapels included.
The whole idea that +ABL was at anytime non-una cuм is altogether absurd to the Nth degree.No, it's ridiculous to say that +ABL didn't entertain the idea. I can totally see +ABL using non-una-cuм at one time. He was a French theologian - he entertained many opposing views, to analyze them, and because they are complex problems, he went back and forth on them, as his many sermons show.
Dear Stubborn,Texana, I can no more offer proof he is wrong or lying than I can prove +ABL said or never said the Mass non-una cuм. All I can do I did with my last post above. The fact is, it is altogether unreasonable to assume +ABL ever said the Mass non-una cuм - to una cuм faithful. OTOH, it is very easy for non-una cuм faithful to believe he did.
The names of a pope or a bishop in the Canon of the Mass are just like the feast days of saints; movable (people die, some become new saints).
Canon XIII of the Seventh Session does not preclude the changes in the liturgy outside of the rites of the sacraments. One does not incur anathema by not putting the name of the pope or the bishop into the provided space. These men even in regular times can be out of Office ( the state of sedevacante). One does, however, incur anathema by putting the name of St. Joseph to an unchangeable Canon of the Mass. Pope John XXIII is under anathema of Trent and the wrath of Sts. Peter and Paul of Quo Primum.
This is the problem with the 1962 Missal, and Father Ratzinger knew this. That is why he was not only OK with the 1962 liturgy, but in "Summorum Pontificuм" he made sure that the Mass of Pope St. Pius V does not return.
Abp. Lefebvre imposed the 1962 liturgy on the SSPX. Did he ever say the new Mass? Did he "ordain" (God forbid!) a priest with a new rite of Order?
By the way, your statement that Fr. Pierre Epiney, who is the primary source of information, is "repeating a lie" is a defamation of a very holy priest, unless you have specific proof to the contrary. Bishop Pierre Roy, ordained by Bp. Williamson and consecrated by Bp. de Silva, who was ordained to the Priesthood by Bishop Williamson in 2017, is a valid Roman Catholic Bishop. We owe him at least the benefit of the doubt that he would not disseminate disinformation.
Casting doubts on the name, character, and reputation of true priests and bishops carries a heavy burden of proof for a lay Catholic.
"It is said in addition that no discussions on restoring unity were ever begun without the acceptance of the prior condition that the commemoration of the Roman pontiff should be included in the sacred liturgy, nor was a union which had been agreed on regarded as complete until the previous condition had actually been put into effect.
The clear result of all this is that the Latin and Greek churches agree in recognizing and affirming that the commemoration implies a profession of due subjection to the Roman pontiff as head of the Church, and of a willingness to remain in the unity of the Church. On the other hand the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism."
No, it's ridiculous to say that +ABL didn't entertain the idea. I can totally see +ABL using non-una-cuм at one time. He was a French theologian - he entertained many opposing views, to analyze them, and because they are complex problems, he went back and forth on them, as his many sermons show.
What's ridiculous is to say that +ABL DIDN'T analyze theological situations, or go back and forth on some MINOR issues, as almost every Trad Catholic did, in the crazy days of the 70s and 80s.
We've all lived through Covid and the almost unlimited amount of propaganda/lies/conspiracy theories out there -- can anyone of us say we didn't entertain ANY false stories during the 3 years of this mayhem? It would be impossible not to.
The fact is, it is altogether unreasonable to assume +ABL ever said the Mass non-una cuм - to una cuм faithful. OTOH, it is very easy for non-una cuм faithful to believe he did.
No, it's ridiculous to say that +ABL didn't entertain the idea. I can totally see +ABL using non-una-cuм at one time. He was a French theologian - he entertained many opposing views, to analyze them, and because they are complex problems, he went back and forth on them, as his many sermons show.Oh BS Pax. Now you're being ridiculous! ridiculous!
What's ridiculous is to say that +ABL DIDN'T analyze theological situations, or go back and forth on some MINOR issues, as almost every Trad Catholic did, in the crazy days of the 70s and 80s.
We've all lived through Covid and the almost unlimited amount of propaganda/lies/conspiracy theories out there -- can anyone of us say we didn't entertain ANY false stories during the 3 years of this mayhem? It would be impossible not to.
Nobody's "assuming" anything. In fact, the reason this is newsworthy is that pretty much everyone had assumed the opposite. We're not dealing with assumptions, but with a report from Bishop Roy about what Father Epiney says Archbishop Lefebvre told him. Again, irrelevant 33 years later, but this has nothing to do with "assuming" anything.Yes, and you're doing so without any regard whatsoever to what +ABL believed and preached on the subject - which kills any and all legitimacy to the claim that he ever said the Mass non-una cuм.
Your "stories" are utter nonsense.No, they're not stories. Personal experience. Fr Jenkins is not dogmatic in the sense that he won't permit opposing views, but he is dogmatic in the sense that he pushes the idea that non-Sedes/una cuм are heretical. They have this odd logic that "If you're a sedevacantist, then going to an una cuм is wrong. If one isn't a Sede, they aren't culpable." It's similar false logic/situational ethics used towards the novus ordo. "If you know the new mass is wrong, then you can't attend. Many people don't know it's wrong."
The whole idea that +ABL was at anytime non-una cuм is altogether absurd to the Nth degree.
The idea that he considered it at one time or another is not the issueThese 2 statement are contradictory. That's all I was pointing out.
These 2 statement are contradictory. That's all I was pointing out.No, they are not contradictory.
I don't care if +ABL was (even for 2 seconds) a Sede. We know he entertained the idea, as there are many, many sermons which say so. To argue otherwise, is dumb.
It's one thing to consider the idea, it's another thing entirely to actually celebrate the Mass non-una cuм.
You don't know what you're talking about. The original edition of the 62 missal, the one approved directly by J23 does NOT have the addition of St Joseph. It was after this missal was approved, that the liturgy was handed off to a commission/committee, and then from 62 to 65, there were constant and repeated updates to the missal, until the 65 missal came out, which was then revised very soon after that.
There is nothing wrong with the 62 missal, original edition. Most clerics knew the addition of St Joseph was done by a committee vs the pope, which is why they had no problems ignoring the St Joseph change.
No, the burden of proof is on these clerics for making such a statement, nearly 30 years after +ABL is dead.
The addition of St. Joseph to the Canon was not promulgated by John XXIII himselfThat’s what I said.
That’s what I said.Yes, I know. I was agreeing with you and providing evidence. Here is the only official docuмent signed by John XXIII regarding the 1962 update of the Missal:
The interview begins by saying: "Fr. Epiney told me personally, so many times that after the 1988 consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre would not anymore mention the name of John Paul 2 in the Canon of the Mass. So you know, I'm not lying about this, I have no reasons to believe that Fr. Epiney lied about it, and that's what he told me multiple times." He goes on to say he believes it because he believes it came to a head and finally hit +ABL after the 1988 consecrations.So what I would like to see is someone present this to Bishop Roy and see how he responds.
First, it is easy to understand that +Roy has no reason to disbelieve Fr. Epiney because he is himself non-una cuм, and unlike +ABL, has always believed in and preached non-una cuм. Believes non-una cuм to be correct and probably even virtuous.
Meanwhile we have recordings of +ABL from 1989 (https://dominicansavrille.us/archbishop-lefebvre-sedevacantists/), almost a whole year after the consecrations - plenty of time to have "seen the light" - yet he is preaching against sedeism and specifically preaching against non-una cuм....If you read the link, you will find that +ABL continues on to explain what the prayer actually does mean. NOTE: Whether or not sedes agree it means what +ABL says it means does not matter, what matters *in this case* is that *he believes it,* and is on that account he never could have said the Mass non-una cuм, not ever.
He ends by saying:What the bishop in the video is saying and apparently believes, is that +ABL includes himself among those poorly instructed and poorly taught who believe in a false idea. And that +ABL himself no longer understands anything, is completely desperate and does not know what to expect.
The whole idea that +ABL was at anytime non-una cuм is altogether absurd to the Nth degree. The video is "ridiculous! ridiculous!"
No, they're not stories. Personal experience. Fr Jenkins is not dogmatic in the sense that he won't permit opposing views, but he is dogmatic in the sense that he pushes the idea that non-Sedes/una cuм are heretical. They have this odd logic that "If you're a sedevacantist, then going to an una cuм is wrong. If one isn't a Sede, they aren't culpable." It's similar false logic/situational ethics used towards the novus ordo. "If you know the new mass is wrong, then you can't attend. Many people don't know it's wrong."Not my experience, and I'll go out on a limb and say I know a lot more sedes IRL than you do. In my experience the large majority of sedes I know would not say una cuм is heretical nor sinful. But they will say that they prefer to assist non una cuм and will do so if there is a choice. They will also discourage assistance una cuм, but wouldn't say someone cannot do so. This is much like Bishop Pivarunas' position.
So, "on paper" they aren't dogmatic. But in practice, they are teaching many, many Trads to believe/act as if 'una cuм' is heretical. But these rules only apply "If they are Sedevacantist..." And i've heard this argument from many who attend such chapels.
It's a philosophical way to both deny the formal policy, while encouraging the bad ideals. I'm not saying this is done deceitfully, nor subversively, but that it's just bad logic.
They will also discourage assistance una cuм, but wouldn't say someone cannot do so.They would say this to non-sedes. But if you’re a sede, then it’s sinful to attend una cuм.
They would say this to non-sedes. But if you’re a sede, then it’s sinful to attend una cuм.It's sinful?
They would say this to non-sedes. But if you’re a sede, then it’s sinful to attend una cuм.Nope. I have never heard any CMRI or independent priest tell a sede that it is sinful to assist at an una cuм mass.
It's sinful?Oh yes, i've been told this many times. If you attend a mass where the priest "prays in union with" a heretic pope then you are "in communion with" a heretic pope. (The 2 phrases in quotes are theologically made-up nonsense, but those are their arguments). They consider it more than sinful; it's heresy.
Seem as though only Stubborn and a few of the other Old Catholics here really care whether +Lefebvre did or did not offer Mass una cuм Wojtyla. That's because they're replaced the rule of faith they have rejected in the Magisterium with the latest position of Archbishop Lefebvre (which could differ from year to year and even month to month). If +Lefebvre had started doing Novus Ordo clown Masses before he died, it would have zero effect on what I think.Closer to the truth, Ladislaus and his friends really want to prove that ABL was non-una-cuм, in spite of everything he ever did and said, in spite of what he enjoined upon the religious society he founded, in spite of what all his faithful followers have always known and preached and done, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Yet they cling to this one little straw. Why are they so desperate? Why does it matter to them? They all see in Archbishop Lefebvre the faithful Catholic shepherd God gave us whom we ought to follow, and they want to find in him the justification for what they do. You can't blame them for that...
So what I would like to see is someone present this to Bishop Roy and see how he responds.Put it this way...
I would add that perhaps you should avoid implying that he is lying given you falsely accused another sede Bishop of lying not too long ago.
So what I would like to see is someone present this to Bishop Roy and see how he responds.I would be surprised if he responded any differently, and yet, there it is, +ABL explaining what he believes una cuм means. Per the link, +ABL says it means, and I quote him here: "WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION."
I would be surprised if he responded any differently, and yet, there it is, +ABL explaining what he believes una cuм means. Per the link, +ABL says it means, and I quote him here: "WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION."When I said "he" I was referring to Bishop Roy.
Now we are supposed to believe that +ABL decided not to pray for the pope any more, after he just said that he believes the above? This is reasonable, how?
Put it this way...Oh I understand why you have trouble with it. I never said I didn't. I agree that it does seem odd. What I am saying is I don't like how you're implying that both of these men LIED.
2V, put the shoe on the other foot for just a minute......if an una cuм bishop said he was told multiple times by another una cuм priest that Fr. Cekada told this priest that in his last years Fr. Cekada celebrated the Mass una cuм, would you simply roll over and accept that? Do you think Lad would? Do you think any sede would?
This other shoe is just as unfathomable to you, but possible and acceptable to me, as +ABL celebrating the Mass non-una cuм is unfathomable to me, but possible and acceptable to you.
When I said "he" I was referring to Bishop Roy.Yes, so was I. I'd be surprised if he reacted any differently.
Oh I understand why you have trouble with it. I never said I didn't. I agree that it does seem odd. What I am saying is I don't like how you're implying that both of these men LIED.As I said earlier (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/red-alert!-are-the-sedevacantists-the-only-true-followers-of-abp-lefebvre/msg923698/?topicseen#msg923698), "Personally I believe they are repeating a lie they think is the truth."
And although I would highly doubt Fr C would have changed his ways/views before death, there is always a possibility. Then again he rarely waffled whereas there are numerous quotes from ABL that don't condemn sedevacantism.Well, I agree, but +ABL preached repeatedly that he believed he was praying for the pope una cuм, this is what he believed in.
Well, I agree, but +ABL preached repeatedly that he believed he was praying for the pope una cuм, this is what he believed in.Not going round and round on this because when push comes to shove...i don't care.
Fr. Cekada preached ad nauseam that he did not believe the pope was the pope and believed it wrong (a sin?) to pray for a heretic pope una cuм, this is what he believed in.
What the OP video is telling us, is that +ABL did not believe what he repeatedly preached, the other shoe says the same about Fr. Cekada.
Yes, I know. I was agreeing with you and providing evidence. Here is the only official docuмent signed by John XXIII regarding the 1962 update of the Missal:Dear Angelus and Pax Vobis,
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/es/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_j-xxiii_motu-proprio_19600725_rubricarum-instructum.html
It was referred to as an update to the "rubrics" only. Definitely not mentioning any change to "the Roman Canon."
There is nothing wrong with the ORIGINAL edition of the 1962 missal. Quit making a mountain out of a molehill.Dear Pax Vobis,
Dear Pax Vobis,Lots of places still sell them; brand new. Try the FSSP website. The original editions don't have St Joseph. The later editions come with a "sticker" to place on the canon page, which includes St Joseph.
Please tell me where to find a copy of the original edition of the 1962 missal.
Is it different from the one used by the SSPX priests today?Do you even know the difference between the 62 missal and the 55 missal? It sounds like you don't. Outside of Holy Week and the updates to the calendar, the 55 is exactly the same as the 62. Holy Week changes were introduced by Pius XII, so unless you're saying he wasn't a pope, the new Holy Week is ok too.
Lots of places still sell them; brand new. Try the FSSP website. The original editions don't have St Joseph. The later editions come with a "sticker" to place on the canon page, which includes St Joseph.Dear Pax Vobis,
Do you even know the difference between the 62 missal and the 55 missal? It sounds like you don't. Outside of Holy Week and the updates to the calendar, the 55 is exactly the same as the 62. Holy Week changes were introduced by Pius XII, so unless you're saying he wasn't a pope, the new Holy Week is ok too.
Are the 62 missal and Holy Week changes perfectly pleasing to God? Probably not. Are they heretical and sinful? No.
Lots of places still sell them; brand new. Try the FSSP website. The original editions don't have St Joseph. The later editions come with a "sticker" to place on the canon page, which includes St Joseph.
Do you even know the difference between the 62 missal and the 55 missal? It sounds like you don't. Outside of Holy Week and the updates to the calendar, the 55 is exactly the same as the 62. Holy Week changes were introduced by Pius XII, so unless you're saying he wasn't a pope, the new Holy Week is ok too.
Are the 62 missal and Holy Week changes perfectly pleasing to God? Probably not. Are they heretical and sinful? No.
Pax, you are correct about the lawfully-promulgated Missale Romanum, the one published during the year 1962, uses the exact same Ordo and Canon as the 1955 (traditional Pius V) Missal. Only the changes to rubrics and calendar were lawfully-promulgated and published during the year 1962.And besides, if you believe the opinion of St. Francis de Sales, that St. Joseph was assumed body and soul into heaven at the Ascension, then this probably means that he was baptized, received Holy Communion, and received Confirmation, making him the chief member of the Church, alongside Our Lady. I have no problem with St. Joseph being in the Canon. In fact, I endorse it.
The change made to the Roman Canon (adding St. Joseph) was not part of the any officially-approved Missale Romanum that was published in 1962. That deceptive and unlawful change did not happen until after 1962.
Dear MiracleOfTheSun,On the face of it, who could really complain about adding Saint Joseph? But at the end of the day it's just another item that needed to be changed. Sounds like Obama's 'change'. Obama, keep the change.
There is a story repeated by some (Dom Hesse included) that when Pope Pius IX was approached by the clergy proposing the insertion of the name of St. Joseph into the Canon, he simply answered: "I am only the pope." While this may be attributed to his humility, the truth is he knew that he could not do it (bound by the Council of Trent), hence the quote.
Dear MiracleOfTheSun,Does the SSPX say St Joseph and does that make the mass invalid?
There is a story repeated by some (Dom Hesse included) that when Pope Pius IX was approached by the clergy proposing the insertion of the name of St. Joseph into the Canon, he simply answered: "I am only the pope." While this may be attributed to his humility, the truth is he knew that he could not do it (bound by the Council of Trent), hence the quote.
It was never officially promulgated by John XXIII in a legal docuмent and published in an approved Missal in the year 1962.
Does the SSPX say St Joseph and does that make the mass invalid?
Does the SSPX say St Joseph and does that make the mass invalid?Dear AnthonyPadua,
Dear AnthonyPadua,
From what Angelus and PaxVobis are saying, the SSPX, thanks to the Abp. Lefebvre's diplomatic prowess, are using the 1960 Missale Romanum, which is the first version of 1962 Missale Romanum, without the additions authorized in November 1962.
John XXIII's command issued in the decree Novis hisce temporibus can be found in the AAS:
https://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/docuмents/AAS-54-1962-ocr.pdf
See page 873 'De S. Ioseph nomine Canoni Missae inserendo'
For this reason, this Sacred Congregation of Rites, following the will of the Supreme Pontiff, decides as follows below: Action after the words: "Communicating...our Lord Jesus Christ..." these will be added: "...but also blessed Joseph of the Spouse of the same Virgin..." and then continue: "...and of your blessed apostles and martyrs."
The S. Congregation itself has also determined that this prescription should also be observed on the days where the special form of "Communicating" is prescribed in the Missal.
Does the SSPX say St Joseph and does that make the mass invalid?
This was not a "command" of John XXIII. It was a decree from the Prefect of a curial congregation. Those are legally very different things. A legal change to the Canon of the Mass is not a small thing that one can sneak in with an obscure note that does not include the signature of the Pope himself.Dear Angelus,
I translated the "decree" and provided the scan from the AAS as an attachment to the following post:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/red-alert!-are-the-sedevacantists-the-only-true-followers-of-abp-lefebvre/msg923811/#msg923811
The key section is at the end (read carefully):
That means that the Cardinals on the Sacred Congregation made the decision announced. Not the Pope. The Cardinals do not have the authority to change the Canon of the Mass.
This was not a "command" of John XXIII. It was a decree from the Prefect of a curial congregation. Those are legally very different things. A legal change to the Canon of the Mass is not a small thing that one can sneak in with an obscure note that does not include the signature of the Pope himself.Angelus,
I translated the "decree" and provided the scan from the AAS as an attachment to the following post:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/red-alert!-are-the-sedevacantists-the-only-true-followers-of-abp-lefebvre/msg923811/#msg923811
The key section is at the end (read carefully):
That means that the Cardinals on the Sacred Congregation made the decision announced. Not the Pope. The Cardinals do not have the authority to change the Canon of the Mass.
P.S. This same game was played by the freemasons allies of Bugnini starting with certain changes to Holy Week all the way through to the Novus Ordo and the new Sacraments. A small (possibly temporary) change was authorized by a Pope. Then that small change was further interpreted by the Curia into a huge change. The freemasons running the Curial Congregation made it look like (through a deception) that the change was canonically-promulgated by the proper authority, when it actually was not.
There is a story repeated by some (Dom Hesse included) that when Pope Pius IX was approached by the clergy proposing the insertion of the name of St. Joseph into the Canon, he simply answered: "I am only the pope." While this may be attributed to his humility, the truth is he knew that he could not do it (bound by the Council of Trent), hence the quote..
Angelus,.
My apologies, I had not noticed you had given the reference already in the thread.
However, I do not think one can, ordinarily, just dismiss the decrees of the Roman Congregations. They act with delegated authority of the Holy See. Only a relatively small amount of Church Law is promulgated directly by the Pope by Apostolic Constitutions, by motu proprio, Apostolic letter etc. If something is not directly issued by the Pope can it simply be ignored?
The changes to Holy Week were signed by the Cardinal Prefect of the SCR and its Secretary, not by Pius XII - are they not binding?
For the record if I were in orders I would not name St Joseph in the Canon.
..
This is typical of the kind of arguments Canon Hesse makes. Dubious facts supporting false principles with bad logic.
The story is questionable to begin with, but if it's true it's pretty obvious that it's a joke, and it doesn't come anywhere near indicating that Pius IX thought he had no power to put St. Joseph's name in the canon. A pope has the power to change the liturgy, and the Council of Trent didn't say otherwise.
Angelus,
My apologies, I had not noticed you had given the reference already in the thread.
However, I do not think one can, ordinarily, just dismiss the decrees of the Roman Congregations. They act with delegated authority of the Holy See. Only a relatively small amount of Church Law is promulgated directly by the Pope by Apostolic Constitutions, by motu proprio, Apostolic letter etc. If something is not directly issued by the Pope can it simply be ignored?
The changes to Holy Week were signed by the Cardinal Prefect of the SCR and its Secretary, not by Pius XII - are they not binding?
For the record if I were in orders I would not name St Joseph in the Canon.
There were, however, additions made to the "Communicantes" so as to introduce special allusions on certain feasts; the two lists of saints, in the "Communicantes" and "Nobis quoque peccatoribus", were enlarged so as to include various local people, and even the "Hanc igitur" and the "Qui pridie" were modified on certain days. The Council of Trent (1545-63) restrained this tendency and ordered that "the holy Canon composed many centuries ago" should be kept pure and unchanged; it also condemned those who say that the "Canon of the Mass contains errors and should be abolished" (Sess. XXII., cap. iv. can. vi; Denzinger, 819, 830). Pope Pius V (1566-72) published an authentic edition of the Roman Missal in 1570, and accompanied it with a Bull forbidding anyone to either add, or in any way change any part of it.
No, Texana, you misunderstood what I said. I said nothing about the practices of the SSPX. As anyone can see from looking at the SSPX-published Angelus Missal, the SSPX priests DO INCLUDE the St. Joseph addition in the Canon of the Mass.The angelus missal also does not include the 2nd confiteor but my priests do say it, so I am not sure if they actually follow that missal.
The angelus missal also does not include the 2nd confiteor but my priests do say it, so I am not sure if they actually follow that missal.Dear AnthonyPadua,
Also what about the kiss of peace?
Dear AnthonyPadua,I don't think I've ever seen it, or maybe I missed it?
"1. The Pax or kiss of peace is the ceremonial embrace and kiss, in sign of fraternal charity, which is given during solemn Mass to all the clergy present and to those engaged in the service of the altar." (p.429) For more information please read: "The Celebration of the Mass, A Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal" Rev. J.B O'Connell, The Bruce Publishing Co. Milwaukee.1964. This edition has the updated rubrics of 1960.
Far from having the power to change the Canon of the Mass, the Congregation is supposed to make sure it is "diligently observed." No one, after Trent and Quo Primum, could change the Canon of the Mass.
Catholic Encyclopedia
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm
Council of Trent Session VII
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent Session XXII
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm
CHAPTER IV: On the Canon of the Mass. And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs.
CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
1917 Canon Law
Canon 253 (NA) Cross-Ref.: 1917 CIC 1999
§ 1. The Congregation for Sacred Rites has authority to see and establish all those things that
proximately involve the sacred rites and ceremonies of the Latin Church, but not which refer to
sacred rites in the wide sense, things like the right of precedence and others of this sort, which are
treated either in the judicial order or in the disciplinary line.
§ 2. It is for it especially to be vigilant that the sacred rites and ceremonies are diligently
observed in celebrating the Sacred [Synax], in the administration of Sacraments, in conducting
divine offices, and in all those things that respect cult in the Latin Church; [it can] grant opportune
dispensations; it can give out insignia and privileges of honor whether personal or for a time,
whether to places or perpetually, in matters affecting sacred rites and ceremonies, and shall take
care lest these fall into abuse.
§ 3. Finally all those things that pertain to the beatification and canonization of the Servants of
God or to sacred relics in any way are referred to it.
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.
(Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, n. 3)
Quoted here - Did the Council of Florence Teach Error? A Response to Athanasius Schneider’s Attempt to Save Vatican II – Novus Ordo Watch (https://novusordowatch.org/2020/06/athanasius-schneider-council-of-florence-holy-orders/#:~:text=In 1947%2C Pope Pius XII officially corrected the,valid matter for diaconal%2C presbyteral%2C and episcopal ordinations.)
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circuмstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."
51. Several causes, really have been instrumental in the progress and development of the sacred liturgy during the long and glorious life of the Church.
52. Thus, for example, as Catholic doctrine on the Incarnate Word of God, the eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice, and Mary the Virgin Mother of God came to be determined with greater certitude and clarity, new ritual forms were introduced through which the acts of the liturgy proceeded to reproduce this brighter light issuing from the decrees of the teaching authority of the Church, and to reflect it, in a sense so that it might reach the minds and hearts of Christ's people more readily.
53. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters.
54. Just as notable a contribution to this progressive transformation was made by devotional trends and practices not directly related to the sacred liturgy, which began to appear, by God's wonderful design, in later periods, and grew to be so popular. We may instance the spread and ever mounting ardor of devotion to the Blessed Eucharist, devotion to the most bitter passion of our Redeemer, devotion to the most Sacred Heart of Jesus, to the Virgin Mother of God and to her most chaste spouse.
55. Other manifestations of piety have also played their circuмstantial part in this same liturgical development. Among them may be cited the public pilgrimages to the tombs of the martyrs prompted by motives of devotion, the special periods of fasting instituted for the same reason, and lastly, in this gracious city of Rome, the penitential recitation of the litanies during the "station" processions, in which even the Sovereign Pontiff frequently joined.
56. It is likewise easy to understand that the progress of the fine arts, those of architecture, painting and music above all, has exerted considerable influence on the choice and disposition of the various external features of the sacred liturgy.
57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about - during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors - that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.[48] This body fulfills even today the official function of supervision and legislation with regard to all matters touching the sacred liturgy.[49]
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.
Dear DecemRationis,
For cryin' out loud Angelus just read closer and not read looking to see if it's capable of supporting what you want it to say.
For example, look at this canon:
According to that, no pope could make any change in any rite used in administration of the sacraments - rites (plural), sacraments (plural). That would forbid Pius XII, for example, in making any changes in the rite regarding the sacrament of ordination. Your reading is nonsense. As Pius XII himself said:
The proscription against changing is directed at rogue priests and perhaps bishops who change sacramental rites at their own discretion and without approval of the authority authorized to make changes - which is Rome, or the pope, sometimes the local ordinary with delegated authority.
Pius XII made this clear in Mediator Dei. The proscriptions of change relate to lesser authorities that act without approval of the competent authorities and wreak havoc and inconsistencies with regard to administration of the holy sacraments:
Again, with all your other highlights of Magisterial texts, you stretch them to the point of abuse to read into them what you want. None of those texts say the competent authority of the Church, the holy father the pope, can't change the Canon or any other rites of the Roman Church in reference to the administration of the sacraments other than those, by divine law and the Lord Himself, aspects (the Form) which have been determined in specie, e.g., the words of the consecration of the precious body and blood in the Eucharist.
You highlight "the Sacred Canon, pure from any error." Right. The TLM canon is pure and free from error. That doesn't say the pope can't change in the prayers of the Canon or any parts of a sacramental rite " what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circuмstances, times, and places." Council of Trent, Session XXI, Chapter 2.
You highlight, " especially to be vigilant that the sacred rites and ceremonies are diligently observed," and " in matters affecting sacred rites and ceremonies, and shall take
care lest these fall into abuse." Of course. We are talking about the sacraments, and diligence and care should be taken as to their administration lest, again, their administration otherwise falls into havoc and inconsistencies and even conflict by private and peculiar use by priests, etc. - but, AGAIN, that language doesn't bear the weight you want to lay on it. It doesn't mean the pope or the Church, the proper authority, can't make changes to the sacramental rites as it sees fit.
It's as if you read these things until you find something that you think can support your argument, and then you stretch the text around your argument.
Sorry . . . your rubber bands are broken.