Author Topic: SVs are Bad Because they Dont Name "Pope" in Canon (Read 8167 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** August 27, 2015, 07:08:29 AM »

http://www.novusordowatch.org/sspx_dossier_sede.pdf

20. Firstly, the refusal to name the Vatican II “Popes” in the Canon of the Mass.

5.1. Mass Una cuм: Bishop Guérard des Lauriers used to say that "to cite John Paul II at the Te Igitur of the Holy Mass is to commit, objectively and ineluctably, the double crime of sacrilege and capital schism.” On the contrary, the expression Una cuм in the Canon of the Mass does not mean that one affirms that he is ‘in communion’ with the erroneous opinions of the Pope, but rather that one wants to pray for the Church ‘and for’ the Pope, her visible head. In order to be sure of this interpretation, let us report the rubric of the missal for the occasion of a bishop celebrating Mass. In this case, the bishop must pray for the Church “Una cuм... me indigno famulo tuo”, which does not mean that he prays ‘in communion with... myself, your unworthy servant’ (which doesn’t make sense!), but that he prays ‘and for... myself, your unworthy servant.’ We should then consider that those who refuse to name the Pope during the canon of the Mass think that the Church lost her visible head. This attitude is schismatic!

a) Fr. Boulet is quote right about the meaning of the so-called “una cuм” clause of the Mass. This is indisputable, and I am not aware of any of Bishop Guerard’s followers who still maintains the erroneous exegesis of it. Which is not to say that they disown his conclusion. They do not. They maintain that a priest ought not to name as Pope in the Canon of the Mass a man that is in fact not Pope. This is surely an entirely reasonable position to take. The only alternative is to admit the legitimacy of lying.

b) In any case, all know that it is not schismatic to reject the claim of a Pope which one considers to be at best doubtful, so that Fr. Boulet’s comment, “this attitude is schismatic!” is incorrect and actually unjust.

Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumours, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI), or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church. [Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicuм [Rome: Gregorian 1937], 7:398.]

Stubborn · « **Reply #1 on:** August 27, 2015, 09:50:10 AM »

Per Quo Primum, it is unlawful to omit the name of the pope.

Per Ex Quo, it is an act of schism to omit the name of the pope - no matter what the reason is.

Quote from: Quo Primum

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.

Quote from: Ex Quo

Ex Quo
"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"

Per Pope St. Pius V and Pope Benedict XIV, priests and lay men are not permitted to omit the name of the pope from the Mass - no matter how strongly they feel about it - and this is regardless of what Bishop Guérard des Lauriers and Fr. Boulet opinion is in the matter or what they have to say about it.

Further, this act of omission proves itself extremely serious, it is not the trivial act that the title of this thread implies, because it was and still is, the [main?] cause for SVs to split from other trads, open their own chapels, schools, seminaries and etc..

IMO, there is a lot more to this omission than most people realize or are willing to admit.

Archbishop Lefebvre tried to tell the SVs...........

Quote from: +ABL

"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

To put this whole issue in perspective........

Quote from: Fr. Wathen

This Sedevacantism is your opinion. But the Mass not yours, and I know you do not have the right to change a word of it. I have heard you say the same thing about those who brought in the New Mass. And now this is what you have done!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** August 27, 2015, 09:50:11 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumours, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI), or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church. [Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicuм [Rome: Gregorian 1937], 7:398.]

It is upon this that I base my sede-doubtist position.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** August 27, 2015, 09:52:12 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Per Quo Primum, it is unlawful to omit the name of the pope.

Per Ex Quo, it is an act of schism to omit the name of the pope - no matter what the reason is.

This begs the question that he's actually the pope.

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** August 27, 2015, 09:59:55 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Stubborn
Per Quo Primum, it is unlawful to omit the name of the pope.

Per Ex Quo, it is an act of schism to omit the name of the pope - no matter what the reason is.

This begs the question that he's actually the pope.

Only if you give your opinion, authority over Quo Primum and Ex Quo.

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** August 27, 2015, 10:29:55 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Per Quo Primum, it is unlawful to omit the name of the pope.

This is completely irrelevant to this topic.

There is not one sedevacantist priest who knowingly omits the name of the pope from the canon. Neither docuмent you reference say that Bergoglio is the pope.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** August 27, 2015, 10:41:21 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Stubborn
Per Quo Primum, it is unlawful to omit the name of the pope.

Per Ex Quo, it is an act of schism to omit the name of the pope - no matter what the reason is.

This begs the question that he's actually the pope.

Only if you give your opinion, authority over Quo Primum and Ex Quo.

Quo Primum says you cannot omit the name of the POPE.

But if Francis is NOT the Pope, then you are not violating Quo Primum by omitting the name of Francis from the Canon.

In your comments you are simply assuming that Francis is / must be the pope (thus you are begging the question).

Stubborn · « **Reply #7 on:** August 27, 2015, 11:52:52 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Stubborn
Per Quo Primum, it is unlawful to omit the name of the pope.

This is completely irrelevant to this topic.

There is not one sedevacantist priest who knowingly omits the name of the pope from the canon. Neither docuмent you reference say that Bergoglio is the pope.

This is wrong. SVs convincing themselves that their opinion is fact, does not change the decrees of Quo Primum or Ex Quo to suit them, as if they do not apply in their case. Per those decrees, no one is permitted to omit his name for any reason.

It is the SVs opinion that the pope is not the pope. That is all it is. Their knowledge of the popes' sins in no way authorize them to claim the pope is not the pope and omit his name from the Mass.
The Church alone, i.e. another pope would authoritatively need to make that fact known, until or unless that happens, claiming there is no pope and therefore omitting his name is an act contrary to both Quo Primum and Ex Quo and is giving your opinion, authority over Quo Primum and Ex Quo.

+ABL tried to explain it, but SVs will not hear it. They even omit the mans name for the wrong reason.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Stubborn
Per Quo Primum, it is unlawful to omit the name of the pope.

Per Ex Quo, it is an act of schism to omit the name of the pope - no matter what the reason is.

This begs the question that he's actually the pope.

Only if you give your opinion, authority over Quo Primum and Ex Quo.

Quo Primum says you cannot omit the name of the POPE.

But if Francis is NOT the Pope, then you are not violating Quo Primum by omitting the name of Francis from the Canon.

In your comments you are simply assuming that Francis is / must be the pope (thus you are begging the question).

The reason we assume he is pope is because all the protocols were followed in the election of the conciliar popes. The reason we might think he is not the pope is because of our knowledge of his sins, his heresies, his anti-Catholic words and actions - but we are incapable of knowing he is not pope - and what harm could it possibly do to pray for him in the Mass even if he really is not the pope? - Answer: no harm, prayer could only help him.

As I said, there is a lot more to this omission than most people realize or are willing to admit. It is a very serious thing.

Stubborn · « **Reply #8 on:** August 27, 2015, 12:21:48 PM »

Anyway, I am glad this subject came up. I would like to be shown I am wrong because of the seriousness of this subject and the splits it has caused.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** August 27, 2015, 01:15:48 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Anyway, I am glad this subject came up. I would like to be shown I am wrong because of the seriousness of this subject and the splits it has caused.

What none of you seem to understand, and I frankly find it mind-boggling, is the SERIOUSNESS of professing someone to be the true, legitimate pope and then refusing submission to him when it comes to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church. That is almost the very definition of schism, Stubborn. In fact, it's implicit heresy because it implies the defectibility of the Church's Magisterium, Universal Discipline, and of the Church itself. If I believed as you did that Francis is certaintly the legitimate pope, I would not only insert his name into the Canon but I would also ACTUALLY SUBMIT to him.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** August 27, 2015, 01:21:19 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

The reason we assume he is pope is because all the protocols were followed in the election of the conciliar popes. The reason we might think he is not the pope is because of our knowledge of his sins, his heresies, his anti-Catholic words and actions - but we are incapable of knowing he is not pope - and what harm could it possibly do to pray for him in the Mass even if he really is not the pope? - Answer: no harm, prayer could only help him.

You're seriously confused. OK, now you're making the "Universal Acceptance" argument about whether he's the pope. Fine, but that's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT argument. But what Quo Primum is talking about is putting the name of someone you KNOW to be the pope in the Canon; in that case, refusing to put the name in there implies schism. But if you omit the name due to simple material error (e.g. false rumor that he has died or thinking he's not the pope), that's a completely different issue altogether.

Quote

As I said, there is a lot more to this omission than most people realize or are willing to admit. It is a very serious thing.

You just said that putting his name in the Canon is just about "praying for him". In which case, it's not all that serious. You're just conflating and confusing about four or five completely different issues.

Stubborn · « **Reply #11 on:** August 27, 2015, 01:43:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Stubborn
Anyway, I am glad this subject came up. I would like to be shown I am wrong because of the seriousness of this subject and the splits it has caused.

What none of you seem to understand, and I frankly find it mind-boggling, is the SERIOUSNESS of professing someone to be the true, legitimate pope and then refusing submission to him when it comes to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church. That is almost the very definition of schism, Stubborn. In fact, it's implicit heresy because it implies the defectibility of the Church's Magisterium, Universal Discipline, and of the Church itself. If I believed as you did that Francis is certaintly the legitimate pope, I would not only insert his name into the Canon but I would also ACTUALLY SUBMIT to him.

But I will submit to him if he ever says or binds us to something that does not offend God.

Stubborn · « **Reply #12 on:** August 27, 2015, 01:57:42 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Stubborn
The reason we assume he is pope is because all the protocols were followed in the election of the conciliar popes. The reason we might think he is not the pope is because of our knowledge of his sins, his heresies, his anti-Catholic words and actions - but we are incapable of knowing he is not pope - and what harm could it possibly do to pray for him in the Mass even if he really is not the pope? - Answer: no harm, prayer could only help him.

You're seriously confused. OK, now you're making the "Universal Acceptance" argument about whether he's the pope. Fine, but that's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT argument. But what Quo Primum is talking about is putting the name of someone you KNOW to be the pope in the Canon; in that case, refusing to put the name in there implies schism. But if you omit the name due to simple material error (e.g. false rumor that he has died or thinking he's not the pope), that's a completely different issue altogether.

No, I am not making universal acceptance anything other than what it is - whatever it is.
I am saying he was elected just like all the popes have been elected. And if not, it is impossible to know let alone prove otherwise. And indisputable proof is what would be required before anyone could hope to presume that the pope is not the pope.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote
As I said, there is a lot more to this omission than most people realize or are willing to admit. It is a very serious thing.

You just said that putting his name in the Canon is just about "praying for him". In which case, it's not all that serious. You're just conflating and confusing about four or five completely different issues.

You're not understanding what I am trying to communicate.
I mean there is more to it, because of what it has done,....... because of the whole una cuм thing, SVs split from other trads and have their own churches, their own seminaries, their own schools, their own Masses, their own beliefs.

I consider these things very serious. I don't understand why everyone doesn't.

Charlemagne · « **Reply #13 on:** August 27, 2015, 02:05:46 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Further, this act of omission proves itself extremely serious, it is not the trivial act that the title of this thread implies, because it was and still is, the [main?] cause for SVs to split from other trads, open their own chapels, schools, seminaries and etc..

Anyone in the "Recognize and Resist" camp calling out trads who "open their own chapels, schools, seminaries" defines "irony." I was having a rough day until I read this, so thanks for the pick-me-up laugh.

Stubborn · « **Reply #14 on:** August 27, 2015, 02:11:09 PM »

Quote from: Charlemagne

Quote from: Stubborn
Further, this act of omission proves itself extremely serious, it is not the trivial act that the title of this thread implies, because it was and still is, the [main?] cause for SVs to split from other trads, open their own chapels, schools, seminaries and etc..

Anyone in the "Recognize and Resist" camp calling out trads who "open their own chapels, schools, seminaries" defines "irony." I was having a rough day until I read this, so thanks for the pick-me-up laugh.

Not sure how you find it worthy of a good laugh but if that is all you have to offer, why not start a new thread about how much enjoyment you get from it.

I said if the pope ever binds us to do something that is not offensive to God, I will submit. The conciliar popes have all corrupted themselves so I'm not holding my breath for any decree that is not corrupt.

Label that with whatever label you like.