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?

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.  

Quote from: Stubborn

"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

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 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.

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 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.

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

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.

Quote from: Stubborn

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 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.