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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 16

Author Topic: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?  (Read 14810 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 14772
  • Reputation: +6102/-912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
« Reply #180 on: January 20, 2024, 12:57:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 20, 2024, 12:55:52 PM
    These 2 statement are contradictory.  That's all I was pointing out.


    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.
    No, they are not contradictory.
    It's one thing to consider the idea, it's another thing entirely to actually celebrate the Mass non-una cuм.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46871
    • Reputation: +27737/-5151
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
    « Reply #181 on: January 20, 2024, 02:15:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on January 20, 2024, 12:57:52 PM
    It's one thing to consider the idea, it's another thing entirely to actually celebrate the Mass non-una cuм.

    Considering the idea could result in at some point accepting it.  They're linked.  Not only did he consider it, right before Assisi it sounded like he was a hair's breadth from accepting and declaring it.
    Logged

    Online Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1172
    • Reputation: +497/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
    « Reply #182 on: January 20, 2024, 02:22:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 20, 2024, 12:02:20 PM
    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 himself with his own signature using an instrument like an Apostolic Constitution, which would be the normal way to do such a huge thing (assuming it could be legally done).

    No, the change to the irreformable Canon of the Mass was done through a memo, written and signed by the Prefect for Congregation of Sacred Rites, without the signature of John XXIII. Read carefully the last paragraph.

    This is common with most of the Bugnini changes (in the time of Pius XII as well)

    Decretum

    De S. Ioseph nomine Canoni Missae inserendo

    Novis hisce temporibus Summi Pontifices non unam nacti sunt occasionem ut ritibus sollemnioribus cultum S. Ioseph, inclyti Beatae Mariae Virginis Sponsi, augerent. Prae omnibus autem Pius Papa IX eminet, qui votis Concilii Vaticani I annuens, Ecclesiae universae castissimum Deiparae Virginis Sponsum, die octava Decembris anni 1870, caelestem Patronum designavit. Praedecessorum suorum vestigia persequens Santissimus D. N. Ioannes Papa XXIII eundem Sanctum Ioseph non tantum Concilii Vaticani II, quod Ipse indixit, "Praestitem salutarem" constituit, sed motu proprio etiam decrevit Eius nomen, tanquam optatum mnemosynon et fructus ipsius Concilii, ut in Canone Missae recitaretur. Quod consilium die 13 Novembris proxima superiori per Cardinalem suum a Status secretis, Concilii Patribus in Vaticana Basilica congregatis publice apperuit iussitque ut praescriptum inde a die octava proximi mensis Decembris, in festo scilicet Immaculatae Conceptionis Beatissimae Virginis Mariae, in praxim deduceretur.

    Quapropter haec S. Rituum Congregatio, voluntatem Summi Pontificis prosecuta, descernit ut infra Actionem post verba: "Communicantes ...Domini Nostri Iesu Christi..."  haec addentur:  ”...sed et beati Ioseph eiusdem Virginis Sponsi...” et deinde prosequatur:  “...et beatorum apostolorum ac Martyrum tuorum.”

    Statuit etiam ipsa S. Congregatio ut huiusmodi praescriptum diebus quoque observetur in quibus peculiaris formula "Communicantes" in Missali praescribitur. Contrariis non obstantibus quibuscuмque, etiam speciali mentione dignis.

    Die 13 Novemberis 1962.


    Decree

    To insert the name of Saint Joseph into the Canon of the Mass

    In recent times, the Supreme Pontiffs have taken advantage of not one occasion to increase the more solemn rites of worship of Saint Joseph, the illustrious spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Pope Pius IX stands out above all, who, agreeing to the vows of the First Vatican Council, designated the most chaste spouse of the Virgin Mother of the whole Church, on the eighth of December 1870, as the heavenly patron. Following in the footsteps of his predecessors, His Holiness, Pope John XXIII, not only appointed for the Second Vatican Council, the same Saint Joseph who he proclaimed as "the Saving Guardian,” but also decreed his name, on his own initiative, as a remembrance and the fruit of the Council itself, to be recited in the Canon of the Mass. This decision was officially revealed on 13 November next by the former Cardinal Secretary of State, the Council of Fathers gathered in the Vatican Basilica and ordered that the prescriptions be put into practice, therefore, from the eighth day of December next month, the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

    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. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary whatsoever, even worthy of special mention.

    November 13, 1962

    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12376
    • Reputation: +7860/-2435
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
    « Reply #183 on: January 20, 2024, 02:37:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    The addition of St. Joseph to the Canon was not promulgated by John XXIII himself 
    That’s what I said. 
    Logged

    Online Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1172
    • Reputation: +497/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
    « Reply #184 on: January 20, 2024, 03:02:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 20, 2024, 02:37:05 PM
    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:

    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."
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6476/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
    « Reply #185 on: January 20, 2024, 03:32:53 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on January 20, 2024, 12:26:26 PM
    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.

    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, 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!"
    So what I would like to see is someone present this to Bishop Roy and see how he responds.

    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.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6476/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
    « Reply #186 on: January 20, 2024, 03:53:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 20, 2024, 12:52:38 PM
    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."

    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.
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12376
    • Reputation: +7860/-2435
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
    « Reply #187 on: January 20, 2024, 05:48:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    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.  
    Logged

    Offline Everlast22

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 919
    • Reputation: +800/-214
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
    « Reply #188 on: January 20, 2024, 05:51:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 20, 2024, 05:48:28 PM
    They would say this to non-sedes.  But if you’re a sede, then it’s sinful to attend una cuм. 
    It's sinful? 
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46871
    • Reputation: +27737/-5151
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
    « Reply #189 on: January 20, 2024, 06:09:27 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6476/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
    « Reply #190 on: January 20, 2024, 10:07:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 20, 2024, 05:48:28 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12376
    • Reputation: +7860/-2435
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
    « Reply #191 on: January 20, 2024, 10:13:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1566
    • Reputation: +1282/-100
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
    « Reply #192 on: January 21, 2024, 12:40:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 20, 2024, 06:09:27 PM
    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...
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14772
    • Reputation: +6102/-912
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
    « Reply #193 on: January 21, 2024, 04:48:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on January 20, 2024, 03:32:53 PM
    So what I would like to see is someone present this to Bishop Roy and see how he responds.

    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.
    Put it this way...
    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.

    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14772
    • Reputation: +6102/-912
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
    « Reply #194 on: January 21, 2024, 05:01:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on January 20, 2024, 03:32:53 PM
    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."

    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?
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse
    Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 16
    « previous next »