Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Croix de Fer on August 07, 2015, 06:04:22 PM
-
The same rules of validity apply to both papacy (which is also the Bishop of Rome) and mere episcopacy.
Acts 1:16-20
[16] Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: [17] Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. [18] And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. [19] And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. [20] For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
Acts 1:16-20 seem to suggest sedeprivationism in Judas' office. Judas lacked the Faith before, during and after the institution of the Eucharist, and if one lacks the Faith, then they cannot truly be a Shepherd (Bishop), yet the material act of the Eucharist conferred him only as a material bishop. Thus, the Scripture says, "And his bishopric let another take", and this person was Matthias who assumed his episcopacy, yet wholly due to Matthias also having true Faith.
Discuss...
-
The same rules of validity apply to both papacy (which is also the Bishop of Rome) and mere episcopacy.
Acts 1:16-20
[16] Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: [17] Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. [18] And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. [19] And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. [20] For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
Acts 1:16-20 seem to suggest sedeprivationism in Judas' office. Judas lacked the Faith before, during and after the institution of the Eucharist, and if one lacks the Faith, then they cannot truly be a Shepherd (Bishop), yet the material act of the Eucharist conferred him only as a material bishop. Thus, the Scripture says, "And his bishopric let another take", and this person was Matthias who assumed his episcopacy, yet wholly due to Matthias also having true Faith.
Discuss...
Acts is quoting Psalm 108 (http://www.drbo.org/chapter/21108.htm).
Deus, laudem meam. David in the person of Christ, prayeth against his persecutors; more especially the traitor Judas: foretelling and approving his just punishment for his obstinacy in sin and final impenitence.
[1] Unto the end, a psalm for David. [2] O God, be not thou silent in my praise: for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful man is opened against me. [3] They have spoken against me with deceitful tongues; and they have compassed me about with words of hatred; and have fought against me without cause. [4] Instead of making me a return of love, they detracted me: but I gave myself to prayer. [5] And they repaid me evil for good: and hatred for my love.
[6] Set thou the sinner over him: and may the devil stand at his right hand. [7] When he is judged, may he go out condemned; and may his prayer be turned to sin. [8] May his days be few: and his bishopric let another take. [9] May his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. [10] Let his children be carried about vagabonds, and beg; and let them be cast out of their dwellings.
[6] Set thou the sinner over him: Give to the devil, that arch-sinner, power over him: let him enter into him, and possess him. The imprecations, contained in the thirty verses of this psalm, are opposed to the thirty pieces of silver for which Judas betrayed our Lord; and are to be taken as prophetic denunciations of the evils that should befall the traitor and his accomplices the Jєωs; and not properly as curses.
[11] May the usurer search all his substance: and let strangers plunder his labours. [12] May there be none to help him: nor none to pity his fatherless offspring. [13] May his posterity be cut off; in one generation may his name be blotted out. [14] May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered in the sight of the Lord: and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. [15] May they be before the Lord continually, and let the memory of them perish from the earth:
[16] because he remembered not to shew mercy, [17] But persecuted the poor man and the beggar; and the broken in heart, to put him to death. [18] And he loved cursing, and it shall come unto him: and he would not have blessing, and it shall be far from him. And he put on cursing, like a garment: and it went in like water into his entrails, and like oil in his bones. [19] May it be unto him like a garment which covereth him; and like a girdle with which he is girded continually. [20] This is the work of them who detract me before the Lord; and who speak evils against my soul.
[21] But thou, O Lord, do with me for thy name' s sake: because thy mercy is sweet. Do thou deliver me, [22] for I am poor and needy, and my heart is troubled within me. [23] I am taken away like the shadow when it declineth: and I am shaken off as locusts. [24] My knees are weakened through fasting: and my flesh is changed for oil. [25] And I am become a reproach to them: they saw me and they shaked their heads,
[24] For oil: Propter oleum. The meaning is, my flesh is changed, being perfectly emaciated and dried up, as having lost all its oil or fatness.
[26] Help me, O Lord my God; save me according to thy mercy. [27] And let them know that this is thy hand: and that thou, O Lord, hast done it. [28] They will curse and thou will bless: let them that rise up against me be confounded: but thy servant shall rejoice. [29] Let them that detract me be clothed with shame: and let them be covered with the their confusion as with a double cloak. [30] I will give great thanks to the Lord with my mouth: and in the midst of many I will praise him.
[31] Because he hath stood at the right hand of the poor, to save my soul from persecutors.
(I don't know if that helps or undermines your case, ascent, but thought it might be of interest.)
-
Thanks, Clare.
-
The quote refers to Psalm 108, which is the Holy Ghost's words in the mouth of Christ against his persecutors, especially Judas.
So even Psalm 108 is talking about Judas. That's the interpretation of the Catholic Church, so that's what it means. Period.
If he had a bishopric, then he was a bishop. Even though he didn't have the Faith. It certainly seems to suggest sedeprivationism.
But also remember that they didn't replace Judas until he was dead. If he had remained alive for another 3 years, would his "place" have been held in the college of the Twelve Apostles? I think it would have.
So this is an argument AGAINST sedevacantism. If he simply "wasn't bishop" they could have replaced him at any time. That's why I often say that the only honest sedevacantists are of the conclavist variety. If you REALLY think he's not the pope, then why do you act as if Pope Francis deserves to sit there for a while? Do you think his "place" should be held until he converts or something? That's the definition of Sedeprivationism.
I don't think many Sedevacantists act as if we're living in an interregnum (time between popes). If they did, they would certainly want to fill that horrible void in the Church hierarchy. After all, it's Catholic dogma that the Catholic Church needs a Pope as her head, to be the vicar of Christ!
In fact, in my opinion a sedevacantist who isn't "conclavist" is holding the same position as the "Recognize and Resist" Catholics they make fun of so much, deriding them as "illogical" and "fence-sitters". What's the difference? Neither one follows the Pope, and neither one acts like Pope Francis doesn't hold the Office.
Note: That's not an insult, because I am recognize-and-resist myself. But I am criticizing their lack of honesty, and their tendency to attack myself (and others like me) for behaving almost EXACTLY as they do.
-
Could go either way; it's hard to say just from this passage. It could have been that he merely vacated the "bishopric" by his death ... it doesn't necessarily mean he vacated it by a loss of faith. It's not even altogether clear that he didn't have the faith; he could just have been a traitor to it.
-
I don't think many Sedevacantists act as if we're living in an interregnum (time between popes). If they did, they would certainly want to fill that horrible void in the Church hierarchy.
That doesn't necessarily follow. Most SVs refuse to be conclavists due to the lack of universal consensus that would be required to fill the vacancy; otherwise you have absurdities like Pope Bawden.
-
In fact, in my opinion a sedevacantist who isn't "conclavist" is holding the same position as the "Recognize and Resist" Catholics they make fun of so much, deriding them as "illogical" and "fence-sitters". What's the difference? Neither one follows the Pope, and neither one acts like Pope Francis doesn't hold the Office.
I disagree. There's a HUGE difference. SVs in principle refuse to accept the notion that Catholics are free to reject the Magisterium of a legitimate pope. That it reduces to the same thing MATERIALLY, concedo, that it's the same position formally, nego.
-
I don't think many Sedevacantists act as if we're living in an interregnum (time between popes). If they did, they would certainly want to fill that horrible void in the Church hierarchy.
That doesn't necessarily follow. Most SVs refuse to be conclavists due to the lack of universal consensus that would be required to fill the vacancy; otherwise you have absurdities like Pope Bawden.
But they aren't trying very hard to get a consensus either. How many have given the project even a few minutes of thought? How many gave more than 10 minutes thought to which Bishops should/must be invited, or where they live? Who maintains lists of the Pius XII bishops? Etc.
Have they written to ANY bishops or priests, or done anything at all get get us even 1 baby step closer to a conclave to get us a Pope? Or do they believe the Papacy is optional or not necessary for the Catholic Church? Or do they deep-down believe that Pope Francis is Pope?
In the practical order/materially (which is all that I'm concerned with), R&R and non-conclavist sedevacantists are doing about the same thing. They are both "hedging their bets" or whatever you want to call it.
The only difference is, the R&R's have a picture of the Pope in the vestibule, whereas the sedevacantists have a dark rectangle where the picture of the Pope used to be (that part of the paint was shaded by the picture for years, so the paint is darker) -- but nothing put in its place. Both sides go on about their Traditional Catholic lives, and both act as if the current Pope "sorta" has the Papacy, at least enough to prevent another from replacing him.
Of the two, I think R&R is more Catholic, because then I'm not positively deposing a pope -- something only a future council of the Church can do.
And I'm just going with the DEFAULT SETTING for a Catholic. After all, the choice between sedevacantism and its opposite is NOT a Y-turn in the road, where everyone has to pick a direction. No, the choice is more of a straight road, with sedevacantism being a hard right-turn off the main road. It takes a positive action. If you do nothing, you stay on the straight road. Everyone on the straight road (who passed up the right turn) didn't "make a choice" to be non-sedevacantist. They just refused the choice to turn off the road. There's a notable difference.
You don't get to choose the "Pope" or "non-Pope" variety of Catholicism when you are baptized. It's not like smoking/non-smoking in a restaurant. They aren't equal. One is fundamentally different from the other, not just its opposite.
-
I love how sedevacantists gasp in feigned horror at recognize-and-resisters:
"You say he's the Pope, and you disobey him! tsk-tsk!"
But they'll depose that same pope, and there's no problem.
Sorry, no one is going to tell me that I have to follow a pope even when he reveals a new religion to the world, or attempts to destroy the Church from within. I'm smarter than that. In a word, "Watch me."
"But you risk your salvation"
"Yes, but I risk it less than YOU, who are betting everything on him not being pope at all. In fact, many of you go well beyond the bounds of charity in your treatment of the uncondemned MAN still living in this time of mercy, Pope Francis."
So you can't argue I'm being risky with my salvation. You're going even further!
You can't argue that I have to go to the Novus Ordo if I recognize the Pope. Nope, just watch me! I'm going to be just as Trad as you in all the details.
Not much of a compelling argument to embrace sedevacantism, if you ask me.
-
I love how sedevacantists gasp in feigned horror at recognize-and-resisters:
"You say he's the Pope, and you disobey him! tsk-tsk!"
But they'll depose that same pope, and there's no problem.
Sorry, no one is going to tell me that I have to follow a pope even when he reveals a new religion to the world, or attempts to destroy the Church from within. I'm smarter than that. In a word, "Watch me."
"But you risk your salvation"
"Yes, but I risk it less than YOU, who are betting everything on him not being pope at all. In fact, many of you go well beyond the bounds of charity in your treatment of the uncondemned MAN still living in this time of mercy, Pope Francis."
So you can't argue I'm being risky with my salvation. You're going even further!
You can't argue that I have to go to the Novus Ordo if I recognize the Pope. Nope, just watch me! I'm going to be just as Trad as you in all the details.
Not much of a compelling argument to embrace sedevacantism, if you ask me.
Totally agree with both your previous posts.
-
...because then I'm not positively deposing a pope -- something only a future council of the Church can do.
I hate to break it to you, but this is heresy. A council cannot depose a pope. The only way the Church could elect a new pope is because she recognizes that the papal claimant has already defected from the faith and has tacitly resigned (if, that is, he ever was the pope).
I have not deposed the pope. I have merely recognized the situation as it exists in reality.
-
Sorry, no one is going to tell me that I have to follow a pope even when he reveals a new religion to the world, or attempts to destroy the Church from within. I'm smarter than that. In a word, "Watch me."
A pope who "reveals a new religion to the world, or attempts to destroy the Church from within" is not a Catholic.
I don't tsk-tsk you. I simply cannot understand why you and other anti-sedevacantists don't recognize that.
In practice, we are exactly the same. Our only differences are in rhetoric. And while some sedevacantists really do condemn your rhetoric, it is the anti-sedevacantists who more often condemn us for simply saying what we are doing.
-
And I'm just going with the DEFAULT SETTING for a Catholic....
That.
-
...because then I'm not positively deposing a pope -- something only a future council of the Church can do.
I hate to break it to you, but this is heresy. A council cannot depose a pope. The only way the Church could elect a new pope is because she recognizes that the papal claimant has already defected from the faith and has tacitly resigned (if, that is, he ever was the pope).
I have not deposed the pope. I have merely recognized the situation as it exists in reality.
When one labels themselves and a sedevacantist, they are labeling themselves as one who has personally deposed the pope.
It *is* possible that a *future* council could decree that previous pope(s) were not popes.
And the Church does not elect popes, Cardinals elect popes after a pope dies. That's the only way a new pope is elected by the cardinals while a previous pope is still alive.
A pope who "reveals a new religion to the world, or attempts to destroy the Church from within" is not a Catholic.
I don't tsk-tsk you. I simply cannot understand why you and other anti-sedevacantists don't recognize that.
In practice, we are exactly the same. Our only differences are in rhetoric. And while some sedevacantists really do condemn your rhetoric, it is the anti-sedevacantists who more often condemn us for simply saying what we are doing.
But the only difference is *not* in the rhetoric. There is way more to it than that. In fact, there is so much more to it, that SVs have their own priests and chapels, seminaries, schools etc. One of the reasons SVs have their own chapels and etc., is precisely because we do not share the same practice.
"This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists...ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer "- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
Source (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Monseigneur-Lefebvre-et-lUna-cuм-Archbishop-Lefebvre-and-the-Una-cuм-Copy.pdf )
-
I don't think many Sedevacantists act as if we're living in an interregnum (time between popes). If they did, they would certainly want to fill that horrible void in the Church hierarchy.
That doesn't necessarily follow. Most SVs refuse to be conclavists due to the lack of universal consensus that would be required to fill the vacancy; otherwise you have absurdities like Pope Bawden.
But they aren't trying very hard to get a consensus either. How many have given the project even a few minutes of thought?
Contrary to popular belief, most SVs are not dogmatic SVs and they know that consensus would be impossible due to the large portion of the Catholic world that still considers these popes to be legitimate. And, in fact, most of the dogmatic SVs happen to be sedeprivationists, and in their view the formal vacancy CANNOT be filled so long as the Holy See is being materially occupied.
How many gave more than 10 minutes thought to which Bishops should/must be invited, or where they live? Who maintains lists of the Pius XII bishops? Etc.
Conclave would not require the Pius XII bishops. In any cases, it's very easy to find them; I think that there are about half a dozen left.
Of the two, I think R&R is more Catholic, because then I'm not positively deposing a pope -- something only a future council of the Church can do.
Both have problems, as I have pointed out many times. Neither one is fully Catholic. You can't have Catholics deposing popes of their own authority, but neither can you have Catholics wholesale rejecting the Magisterium of their own authority. So it's pick your poison. And indeed both are poison to Catholicism.
-
I love how sedevacantists gasp in feigned horror at recognize-and-resisters:
"You say he's the Pope, and you disobey him! tsk-tsk!"
Not disobey, Matthew. REJECT HIS MAGISTERIUM.
But they'll depose that same pope, and there's no problem.
Yes, equally problematic, as I have pointed out.
That's why I have adopted the sede-doubtist/sede-privationist type of position articulated by Father Chazal; it's the only thing (short of remaining in subjection to Rome) that makes sense from the standpoint of Catholic principles. SVs have rightly pointed out that Magisterium-sifting is not Catholic. I later pointed out that Pope-sifting is not Catholic either; I coined that term as a retort to the Magisterium-sifting argument.
Sorry, no one is going to tell me that I have to follow a pope even when he reveals a new religion to the world, or attempts to destroy the Church from within. I'm smarter than that. In a word, "Watch me."
Implicit in this is your stating that the Magisterium can defect, Matthew. Where did they "reveal this new religion" except via the Magisterium?
-
"This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists...ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer "- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
Source (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Monseigneur-Lefebvre-et-lUna-cuм-Archbishop-Lefebvre-and-the-Una-cuм-Copy.pdf )
Moderate SVs would agree with this. And even some dogmatic SVs like the Dimonds agree with this. So it's a side issue.
-
Contrary to popular belief, most SVs are not dogmatic SVs and they know that consensus would be impossible due to the large portion of the Catholic world that still considers these popes to be legitimate. And, in fact, most of the dogmatic SVs happen to be sedeprivationists, and in their view the formal vacancy CANNOT be filled so long as the Holy See is being materially occupied.
Lad, you say most SVs are not dogmatic, yet they label themselves; "Sedevacantists" - which specifically means to broadcast the fact that, FRANCIS IS NOT THE POPE. While I agree that, that in and of itself cannot be 'defined' as dogmatic, if it were possible tho, it would be dogmatic far as they are concerned whether or not they admit to it - no? Perhaps some SVs can chime in here.
Consider Sedevacantist Mithrandylan who posted as Nado for +1000 posts before being banned. We saw him get an awful lot of likers and an awful lot of upthumbs from presumably his fellow SVs. What I am getting at is that SVs believe different from non-SV trads, hence their practice or Lex Credendi is different as well - I think this is because they have a different Lex Orandi. I think their Lex Orandi goes out of it's way to, not only specifically exclude the conciliar popes, but to also condemn the conciliar popes.
"This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists...ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer "- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
Source (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Monseigneur-Lefebvre-et-lUna-cuм-Archbishop-Lefebvre-and-the-Una-cuм-Copy.pdf )
Moderate SVs would agree with this. And even some dogmatic SVs like the Dimonds agree with this. So it's a side issue.
Again, SVs, whether deemed to be moderate or not, all do something they are not permitted to do - omit the name of the pope from the Canon. Because it has to do with a giant thing in the Mass, i.e. the Canon, this is a giant thing in the Law Of Praying, i.e. the Lex Orandi.
I mean, what about Pope Benedict XIV in his encyclical Ex Quo (http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/B14EXQUO.HTM) wherein he repeats numerous times that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, it is a sin to omit the name of the pope from the canon of the Mass. That's it and that's all of it - period. "Roma locuta; causa finita est".
Mind you he is specifically speaking to the Eastern Church - yet the one thing the Eastern Church has in common with SVs of today, is that they both insist that the pope is not the pope, yet Pope Benedict XIV pretty much repeated the same thing over and over stating: whoever omits the name of the pope from the Mass *for any reason* separates himself from the entire world.
"It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world"
I understand SVs will argue the pope is not the pope, I get that - I may be dense, but not that dense. But SVs somehow think their argument is different - but when it comes right down to it, it's not, it is the same argument. Both have the same opinion that the pope is not the pope.
As I hope you know, I have a lot of respect for both your and Matthew's views, and I readily admit that I am way, way less educated in these matters. Yet I think the Lex Orandi is dictating the very real and serious differences between SVs and non SV trads. I will however gladly accept correction where correction is due.
-
Contrary to popular belief, most SVs are not dogmatic SVs and they know that consensus would be impossible due to the large portion of the Catholic world that still considers these popes to be legitimate. And, in fact, most of the dogmatic SVs happen to be sedeprivationists, and in their view the formal vacancy CANNOT be filled so long as the Holy See is being materially occupied.
Lad, you say most SVs are not dogmatic, yet they label themselves; "Sedevacantists" - which specifically means to broadcast the fact that, FRANCIS IS NOT THE POPE. While I agree that, that in and of itself cannot be 'defined' as dogmatic, if it were possible tho, it would be dogmatic far as they are concerned whether or not they admit to it - no? Perhaps some SVs can chime in here.
I'm using "dogmatic" in the sense used on this forum (by Matthew for instance) to refer to SVs who think that those who are not SVs are by that very fact not Catholic. Consequently, if you're not a dogmatic SV, then you consider non-SVs to be Catholics and therefore realize that a universal consensus on the results of a conclave could never be achieved by Catholics. I'll get to the other parts of your post later.
-
Again, SVs, whether deemed to be moderate or not, all do something they are not permitted to do - omit the name of the pope from the Canon. Because it has to do with a giant thing in the Mass, i.e. the Canon, this is a giant thing in the Law Of Praying, i.e. the Lex Orandi.
I mean, what about Pope Benedict XIV in his encyclical Ex Quo (http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/B14EXQUO.HTM) wherein he repeats numerous times that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, it is a sin to omit the name of the pope from the canon of the Mass. That's it and that's all of it - period. "Roma locuta; causa finita est".
Mind you he is specifically speaking to the Eastern Church - yet the one thing the Eastern Church has in common with SVs of today, is that they both insist that the pope is not the pope, yet Pope Benedict XIV pretty much repeated the same thing over and over stating: whoever omits the name of the pope from the Mass *for any reason* separates himself from the entire world.
Here you're simply begging the question, Stubborn. You're assuming that Francis is the pope and therefore that they're omitting the name of the Pope from the Canon. But that's precisely what they're disputing, whether Francis is actually the pope. So this argument by itself can't stand.
-
As I hope you know, I have a lot of respect for both your and Matthew's views, and I readily admit that I am way, way less educated in these matters. Yet I think the Lex Orandi is dictating the very real and serious differences between SVs and non SV trads. I will however gladly accept correction where correction is due.
"Correction" is an overstatement. I simply have a difference of opinion. Correction is a matter for authority. Well, I think that whole point of your quote from Archbishop Lefebvre is to state that the use of the name in the Canon does NOT per se have dogmatic implications. If, for instance, someone omitted it due to a schismatic attitude (e.g. some in the Eastern Rites), then that would indeed be a grave sin. But if you omitted the name because you thought (even mistakenly) that the Pope was dead or even thought that Francis isn't pope and that the See is vacant, that isn't per se any kind of formal dogmatic declaration. Dimonds did a great deal of research on the subject, and they concluded, despite being dogmatic SVs, that inserting the name didn't per se constituted any kind of schismatic / heretical act with dogmatic import.
If I were a priest, I would say "una cuм famulo tuo papa nostro" (but then omit the name) due to doubt. I would formally profess submission to the Pope but then at the same time declare the uncertainty regarding his actual identity. I would consider it an act of hypocrisy to declare my submission to "Francis" when I in fact refuse to submit to Francis and to his "Magisterium".
-
As I hope you know, I have a lot of respect for both your and Matthew's views, and I readily admit that I am way, way less educated in these matters. Yet I think the Lex Orandi is dictating the very real and serious differences between SVs and non SV trads. I will however gladly accept correction where correction is due.
"Correction" is an overstatement. I simply have a difference of opinion. Correction is a matter for authority. Well, I think that whole point of your quote from Archbishop Lefebvre is to state that the use of the name in the Canon does NOT per se have dogmatic implications. If, for instance, someone omitted it due to a schismatic attitude (e.g. some in the Eastern Rites), then that would indeed be a grave sin. But if you omitted the name because you thought (even mistakenly) that the Pope was dead or even thought that Francis isn't pope and that the See is vacant, that isn't per se any kind of formal dogmatic declaration. Dimonds did a great deal of research on the subject, and they concluded, despite being dogmatic SVs, that inserting the name didn't per se constituted any kind of schismatic / heretical act with dogmatic import.
If I were a priest, I would say "una cuм famulo tuo papa nostro" (but then omit the name) due to doubt. I would formally profess submission to the Pope but then at the same time declare the uncertainty regarding his actual identity. I would consider it an act of hypocrisy to declare my submission to "Francis" when I in fact refuse to submit to Francis and to his "Magisterium".
Without a doubt, these are the most cogent comments I've read on CathInfo for some time.
-
Thanks to Ladislaus, Matthew, Clare, Stubborn and TKGS for their excellent contributions to this thread.
Alas, leave it to 2Vermont and Jaynek to hijack this thread, thereby derailing the subject matter to a stupid topic, which should have been started on a new thread, about what CathInfo member is really whom. Typical diversion from something edifying.
-
Thanks to Ladislaus, Matthew, Clare, Stubborn and TKGS for their excellent contributions to this thread.
Alas, leave it to 2Vermont and Jaynek to hijack this thread, thereby derailing the subject matter to a stupid topic, which should have been started on a new thread, about what CathInfo member is really whom. Typical diversion from something edifying.
Hear, hear!
:applause:
I fully agree. We had a good discussion going, and then Stubborn thought it necessary to "call out" someone as being another poster. I agree -- if you're going to do that, make it a new thread.
Note that Stubborn never thought it necessary or appropriate to report this "double account" to me via PM or e-mail. So he was just derailing the thread.
Anyhow, I did some serious trimming to get this thread back on track.
ENOUGH about Mithrandylan and speculation about other accounts he might have. There is no reason to suspect he has a single one.
Please leave moderating to the moderator, and if you really have some information which would be helpful, PM it to me.
-
Thanks to Ladislaus, Matthew, Clare, Stubborn and TKGS for their excellent contributions to this thread.
Alas, leave it to 2Vermont and Jaynek to hijack this thread, thereby derailing the subject matter to a stupid topic, which should have been started on a new thread, about what CathInfo member is really whom. Typical diversion from something edifying.
Hear, hear!
:applause:
I fully agree. We had a good discussion going, and then Stubborn thought it necessary to "call out" someone as being another poster. I agree -- if you're going to do that, make it a new thread.
Note that Stubborn never thought it necessary or appropriate to report this "double account" to me via PM or e-mail. So he was just derailing the thread.
Anyhow, I did some serious trimming to get this thread back on track.
ENOUGH about Mithrandylan and speculation about other accounts he might have. There is no reason to suspect he has a single one.
Please leave moderating to the moderator, and if you really have some information which would be helpful, PM it to me.
Thank you.
-
Again, SVs, whether deemed to be moderate or not, all do something they are not permitted to do - omit the name of the pope from the Canon. Because it has to do with a giant thing in the Mass, i.e. the Canon, this is a giant thing in the Law Of Praying, i.e. the Lex Orandi.
I mean, what about Pope Benedict XIV in his encyclical Ex Quo (http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/B14EXQUO.HTM) wherein he repeats numerous times that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, it is a sin to omit the name of the pope from the canon of the Mass. That's it and that's all of it - period. "Roma locuta; causa finita est".
Mind you he is specifically speaking to the Eastern Church - yet the one thing the Eastern Church has in common with SVs of today, is that they both insist that the pope is not the pope, yet Pope Benedict XIV pretty much repeated the same thing over and over stating: whoever omits the name of the pope from the Mass *for any reason* separates himself from the entire world.
Here you're simply begging the question, Stubborn. You're assuming that Francis is the pope and therefore that they're omitting the name of the Pope from the Canon. But that's precisely what they're disputing, whether Francis is actually the pope. So this argument by itself can't stand.
I *know* this is not how you meant it, but your reply came across trivializing the seriousness of the act of omitting the name of the pope from the Canon.
Since my assumption plays no part in whether we are permitted to omit anything from the Mass, forget for the moment that I'm assuming that Francis is pope.
If, for *whatever reason* we are permitted to omit anything at all, then what is there to stop anyone from changing or omitting whatever they want? The answer is; nothing at all. V2 opined the whole Mass away for this same reason - because there was nothing to stop them.
For example, the rubrics for priest for the beginning of the Mass say:
When the priest has descended to the lowest level of the Altar, he turns towards the Altar, and standing in the middle, with his hands joined before his breast with fingers extended and together, and with his right thumb over his left in the form of a cross (which form is always to be observed when joining the hands until after the Consecration), and with his head uncovered, having first reverenced the Crucifix or Altar, or if a Tabernacle containing the Blessed Sacrament is on the Altar, having genuflected, standing erect, he begins the Mass.
Reading through the rest of the rubrics, there are numerous specifics, similar to the above that dictates to the priest how far to rotate, precisely where to look and exactly when and how far to bow, the loudness of the tone of voice to use in certain places and on and on - these perceived to be trivial things are important enough to dictate to the priest down to the most minute detail.
It is no accident that before V2, one would see the *exact* same Mass no matter where in the world it was being celebrated.
What I am getting at, is that if the rubrics are so precise so as to dictate even the position of the priest's thumbs when his hands are together, then is it not a very serious offense to omit the name of the pope from the Canon *for whatever reason*, even inspite of the priest's opinion that the man is not pope? Since when does his or anyone's opinion matter when it comes to the Mass? Since when does his opinion give him the right to directly disobey Quo Primum and change or omit anything, even if he is correct in his opinion that the pope is not the pope? We cannot omit anything no matter what.
All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.
Per Quo Primum, it is an unlawful or illegal act to omit the name of the pope - period. Per Ex Quo, it is an act of schism - period. There are no allowances for the opinions of anyone in these laws - this is by design and on purpose and most importantly, for good reason, no matter how strong our opinion is.
This act of omission is extremely serious, it is not a trivial act because it was and still is, the cause for SVs to split from other trads, open their own chapels, schools, seminaries and etc., it's caused them to consecrate their own bishops and ordain their own priests, some even refuse Communion to non-SVs.
Which takes me back to why I brought up Nado, whom I used to exemplify the faith of some, though clearly not all, SVs. He has a different faith, one that is not Catholic. You accused him of this before he was banned and I agree - he certainly was preaching a different faith while he was here.
I believe this is due to his 'outlawed' Lex Orandi - which is not limited to his support of the act of omission, but surely must grow from it. That is why I say this act of omission must be a very serious offense, which is why there are laws against it, because the popes who made the laws must have known that to change or omit anything, fuels a different belief aka lex credendi.
I apologize to the forum, Matthew and Mith for saying Mith was Nado, I was wrong and wrong to say it the way I did. Not sure if it's the stupidest thing I've done recently, but it's up there.