Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on April 10, 2023, 10:18:23 AM
-
I just want to make sure I'm right about this. I remember reading on CI about all the Mass options in Cincinnati, OH.
It could easily be possible that other places have almost as many, or AS many -- but not more.
Not talking about # of Trad Catholics either -- I'm strictly talking about # of Traditional Mass OPTIONS.
So is the statement true: "Cincinnati OH has more Mass options than anywhere else in the USA"?
Could someone list the options in Cincinnati -- and then anyone else chime in with places that have more options, if they exist?
I'm just curious. Because it wouldn't change anything really -- even if other places had 6 options and Cincinnati only had 5, for example, it would still explain why Fr. Cekada dreamed up his heresy that "you can't attend a Mass una cuм an antipope without mortal sin". Fr. C still faced great competition in the Trad Chapel department, and he devised his novel doctrine to deal with that competition.
P.S. This thread will also serve an additional purpose: young or middle aged people looking to move can see where Mass is available -- I get questions all the time about Mass options. So this thread isn't just for the sake of idle curiosity.
-
Old St. Marys in Cincinnati (the priests also offer Latin Mass at Sacred Heart, too).
Immaculate Conception Church in Norwood (a good 9-10miles from each other).
-
Old St. Marys in Cincinnati (the priests also offer Latin Mass at Sacred Heart, too).
Immaculate Conception Church in Norwood (a good 9-10miles from each other).
Our Lady of Lourdes in Park Hills, KY. 3miles from Cinci. These priests offer Mass also in Union KY.
-
I just want to make sure I'm right about this. I remember reading on CI about all the Mass options in Cincinnati, OH.
It could easily be possible that other places have almost as many, or AS many -- but not more.
Not talking about # of Trad Catholics either -- I'm strictly talking about # of Traditional Mass OPTIONS.
So is the statement true: "Cincinnati OH has more Mass options than anywhere else in the USA"?
Could someone list the options in Cincinnati -- and then anyone else chime in with places that have more options, if they exist?
I'm just curious. Because it wouldn't change anything really -- even if other places had 6 options and Cincinnati only had 5, for example, it would still explain why Fr. Cekada dreamed up his heresy that "you can't attend a Mass una cuм an antipope without mortal sin". Fr. C still faced great competition in the Trad Chapel department, and he devised his novel doctrine to deal with that competition.
P.S. This thread will also serve an additional purpose: young or middle aged people looking to move can see where Mass is available -- I get questions all the time about Mass options. So this thread isn't just for the sake of idle curiosity.
You don't really know why Fr Cekada (and others) were against sedevacantists assisting at una cuм masses. Maybe he really believed it was sinful to assist at a mass which included Jorge Bergoglio with "all other true believers of the Catholic Faith". I am not of the same mind, but maybe we shouldn't assume malice on his part. That might be an issue when it comes time to meet our eternal reward.
-
Can’t say Cincinnati has the most options in the USA for the Latin Mass, but I will say that it is definitely available in this area!
There are other Mass options outside of Cincinnati (a few that I named) but there are options even a few hours away from Cincinnati, if that counts. Such as: St Benedict’s and Our Lady of the Pillar in Louisville, St Gertrude’s in Wester Chester Township OH, Holy Family Catholic Church in Dayton, or even Immaculate Heart of Mary in Akron OH.
-
You don't really know why Fr Cekada (and others) were against sedevacantists assisting at una cuм masses. Maybe he really believed it was sinful to assist at a mass which included Jorge Bergoglio with "all other true believers of the Catholic Faith". I am not of the same mind, but maybe we shouldn't assume malice on his part. That might be an issue when it comes time to meet our eternal reward.
Can we assume a heresiarch is malicious? That's a good question. What if a heresiarch truly believes in his heresy as the truth? Is it possible to be a heresiarch of good will? I guess I never considered that.
All I know is, the FRUITS of Fr. Cekada's novel heresy are all rotten -- so you're right, I'm presuming a bit that he knew what he was doing and did it with malice so he could get more people, money, etc.
Maybe it's a "moral certainty" thing -- I don't know with absolute certainty, but I know enough to act on.
But maybe the true answer is: it's not about Fr. Cekada one way or the other. He's the author of the error, yes, but the error must be fought regardless of whether Fr. Cekada personally saved his soul or not. Maybe I'm making this too personal. Then again, it's hard to fight Lutheranism without ever mentioning Martin Luther (and his private motivations which caused him to invent the heresies in the first place) or to fight Calvinism without mentioning John Calvin.
Let's just say that IF Fr. Cekada saved his soul, he's probably very anxious for me to help expunge this error, as his Purgatory length depends on it! I'm helping to undo and limit the damage, as it were. So let's say I'm Fr. Cekada's best friend in a way.
-
Cleveland/Akron area (all within a one-hour drive from me):
Tridentine (Traditional) --
St. Peregrine (SSPX) -- Richfield, OH
Immaculate Heart of Mary (SSPX-aligned) -- Akron, OH
Sacred Heart of Jesus (CMRI) -- Akron, OH
St. Therese of the Child Jesus (SSPV) -- Parma, OH
Our Lady of Sorrows (SSPX) -- Girard, OH
** Immaculate Heart of Mary and Sacred Heart have regular daily Masses, but the others are mostly weekend and Holy Days, but I believe the plan is to build a priory at St. Peregrine (Richfield, OH ... halfway between Akron and Cleveland). Father Carley of Immaculate Heart is closing in on being 90 years of age, and SSPX asked him to contribute to the new priory, as I think the intention would be to have the priests at the Richfield priory. IMO, there's a very high probability that SSPX will close IHM after Father Carley is unable to function, sell the property, and tell everyone to go to St. Peregrine in Richfield.
Tridentine (Motu) -- (Cleveland bishop has ignored Bergoglio's demands to shut them down, as these are all at parish churches except the FSSP)
Queen of the Holy Rosary (FSSP) -- Vienna, OH (daily Mass + several preists)
St. Paul -- Akron, OH
St. Sebastian -- Akron, OH
Immaculate Conception -- Cleveland, OH
St. Stephen -- Cleveland, OH
St. Rocco -- Cleveland, OH
St. Ignatius of Antioch -- Cleveland, OH
Mary, Queen of Peace -- Cleveland, OH
St. Elizabeth of Hungary (weekday only) -- Cleveland, OH
Immaculate Conception (weekday only) -- Willoughby, OH
Sacred Heart of Jesus (first Saturday and first Sunday only) -- South Euclid, OH
Eastern Rite -- about 15 or so within an hour of where I live (Ukrainian, Byzantine/Ruthenian, Melkite, and Maronite ... with Maronite being very modernized, the rest mostly OK)
-
Can we assume a heresiarch is malicious? That's a good question. What if a heresiarch truly believes in his heresy as the truth? Is it possible to be a heresiarch of good will? I guess I never considered that.
All I know is, the FRUITS of Fr. Cekada's novel heresy are all rotten -- so you're right, I'm presuming a bit that he knew what he was doing and did it with malice so he could get more people, money, etc.
Maybe it's a "moral certainty" thing -- I don't know with absolute certainty, but I know enough to act on.
But maybe the true answer is: it's not about Fr. Cekada one way or the other. He's the author of the error, yes, but the error must be fought regardless of whether Fr. Cekada personally saved his soul or not. Maybe I'm making this too personal. Then again, it's hard to fight Lutheranism without ever mentioning Martin Luther (and his private motivations which caused him to invent the heresies in the first place) or to fight Calvinism without mentioning John Calvin.
Let's just say that IF Fr. Cekada saved his soul, he's probably very anxious for me to help expunge this error, as his Purgatory length depends on it! I'm helping to undo and limit the damage, as it were. So let's say I'm Fr. Cekada's best friend in a way.
But only you (and others) have condemned it as an error. Not the Church. We've never been in this situation before, not even during the Great Western Schism when all anti-popes believed and professed the Catholic Faith. The anti-una cuм position is not analogous with Lutheranism or Calvinism. And Fr Cekada is not Martin Luther nor John Calvin. No matter how much some folks would like to think so.
As for your last statement, that's quite presumptuous on your part. Since when does God give us specific jobs to reduce anyone's time in Purgatory (other than praying for them)?
-
But only you (and others) have condemned it as an error. Not the Church. We've never been in this situation before, not even during the Great Western Schism when all anti-popes believed and professed the Catholic Faith.
That's my point. We're all doing our best during this Crisis in the Church, and self-serving priests like Fr. Cekada are causing needless division and lack-of-Sacraments by their novel teachings, which have no basis in Church teaching (never seen before) in anything before Vatican II.
Can he (or any of his followers) show where the Church ever taught (before Vatican II) that it could EVER be a priest's job to forbid the Faithful from attending 99% of Mass options? Options whose fruits are good -- we're talking about the Tridentine Mass here. This priest is basically playing "pope", declaring excommuniations of the majority of Catholics and priests, and putting whole areas of the country under Interdict. He is taking personal opinion(s) and elevating them to the level of Catholic Dogma AND taking punitive action (excommunications) accordingly. You're saying I can't condemn that? Too bad, I'm going to.
I don't care WHO does that. What group they are with. They would be wrong.
Yes, there is plenty of latitude for "how we will deal with the Crisis in the Church" -- but that latitude does NOT include taking away latitude from all Catholics and saying "you must come HERE! Here! for Mass. Nowhere else!"
Yes, I'm going to go ahead and condemn that as erroneous. I don't care if he was of bad will or good will in concocting that (objectively) self-serving scheme. The fact is, it is destructive of the Faith, destructive of souls (both sede and non-sede) and Our Lord said to judge by the fruits, as well as judge "just judgment" not according to mere appearances.
Fr. Cekada did a bad deed for the Church with his "novel idea". He went too far. He probably fell for the very human temptation to eliminate the competition and thus allow for more people/money/consolations for himself. God has judged his soul, as is His sovereign right -- but WE CAN, WILL, AND SHOULD JUDGE the error he taught. Non-judgment only goes for people. We can all point out an error that goes against the Faith when we see it.
The idea that literally "anything goes" as long as the Church hasn't formally condemned it is ridiculous -- I'm sure that notion is condemned by the Church somewhere.
And call me what you will, but "Fr. Cekada is the sole saviour of the Catholic Faith, he is the Moses who will lead us through this Crisis, he alone speaks/knows the truth, Catholics during the first 20 years of the Crisis didn't know how to please God, and thus it's Fr. Cekada's way or the highway" CANNOT be the truth. Whatever religion or cult requires assent to such an asinine idea, COUNT ME OUT.
-
But only you (and others) have condemned it as an error. Not the Church. We've never been in this situation before, not even during the Great Western Schism when all anti-popes believed and professed the Catholic Faith.
Sorry 2V but yes, the Church in fact does formally condemn, "for whatever reason," the omitting of the name of the pope in the Canon of the Mass in Ex Quo. (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm) What sedes have done, is convince themselves that their reason for omitting his name anyway, does not fall into the Church's meaning of "whatever reason."
-
That's my point. We're all doing our best during this Crisis in the Church, and self-serving priests like Fr. Cekada are causing needless division and lack-of-Sacraments by their novel teachings, which have no basis in Church teaching (never seen before) in anything before Vatican II.
Yes, there is plenty of latitude for "how we will deal with the Crisis in the Church" -- but that latitude does NOT include taking away latitude from all Catholics and saying "you must come HERE! Here! for Mass. Nowhere else!"
Yes, I'm going to go ahead and condemn that as erroneous. I don't care if he was of bad will or good will in concocting that (objectively) self-serving scheme. The fact is, it is destructive of the Faith, destructive of souls (both sede and non-sede) and Our Lord said to judge by the fruits, as well as judge "just judgment" not according to mere appearances.
Fr. Cekada did a bad deed for the Church with his "novel idea". He went too far. He probably fell for the very human temptation to eliminate the competition and thus allow for more people/money/consolations for himself. God will judge -- but WE CAN, WILL, AND SHOULD JUDGE the error he taught. Non-judgment only goes for people. We can all point out an error that goes against the Faith when we see it.
"Objectively self-serving scheme"? That is purely a subjective judgment on your part.
I'm not convinced the anti-una cuм position is true or an error. Just because the Church has never had to deal with a similar situation doesn't mean it's an error.
Who's to say that assisting at a mass una cuм a heretic "pope" for decades is not a danger to one's soul? Where are the "fruits" of the una cuм SSPX? Perhaps doing so for decades tends towards eventual compromise with the Devil.
-
Sorry 2V but yes, the Church in fact does formally condemn, "for whatever reason," the omitting of the name of the pope in the Canon of the Mass in Ex Quo. (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm) What sedes have done, is convince themselves that their reason for omitting his name anyway, does not fall into the Church's meaning of "whatever reason."
Not turning this into a sede vs non-sede debate. Responding to you will do just that.
-
I'll go next --
San Antonio, TX (10th largest city in the USA), within a 1.5 hour drive of the city center:
St. Joseph's Chapel (weekly Mass plus Holy Days), San Antonio (SSPX)
St. Dominic's Chapel (monthly Mass), Seguin (Resistance)
St. Timothy Catholic Church, San Antonio (Indult)
-end of list-
Nearest Sedevacantist or Independent chapel of any size: 3.75 hours away outside Houston, "St. Jude's"
All Eastern Rites: none
FSSP: none
Institute of Christ the King: none
SSPV: none
CMRI: none
Pfeifferites: none
Dolan/Cekada associated sedes: none
See why I am impressed by the variety in Cincinnati, OH?
-
I'm going to have to say that I have to doubt that any Traditional Catholic priest would consciously and deliberately invent a theology with the thought, "Let me see if I can make up or twist some theological principles to ensure that more people come to my chapel." At best, that might be a subconscious motivating factor that the priest isn't completely aware of. Even Bishop Kelly's, "We can't say the +Thuc bishops are valid, because then people might go there." was related more to the fact that they considered the CMRI to be an Old Catholic sect and didn't want people going there for that reason.
I understand the logic of the "una cuм" position, so it's not entirely outlandish. But the problem is that it makes no distinctions and views everything in black and white terms. "una cuм" is meant to be a profession of being Catholic, but material error regarding the identity of the pope does not undermine the formal intent to be united with the Catholic Church. Was it forbidden to assist at Masses offered by St. Vincent Ferrer, who undoubtedly put the name of the Antipope he mistakenly followed with the una cuм? Was St. Vincent Ferrer a schismatic because he erred regarding the identity of the pope. What about during those times when news didn't travel fast? Would I be forbidden to assist at the Mass of a priest who still thought that the previous pope was alive (though he had passed away) just because he hadn't gotten word of it yet? There's nothing magical about the "una cuм" form, that if you say it like an incantatation, the Mass becomes pleasing to God. Someone can be in material error and it doesn't make attending the Mass somehow sacrilegeous or schismatic. There's no one here putting the name of Kirill or the Coptic Orthodox "Pope" into the Canon and thereby professing adherence to a false religion. Even the Dimonds presented some solid research that the Church has permitted assisting at the Masses of various priests who were basically in schism.
-
I'm going to have to say that I have to doubt that any Traditional Catholic priest would consciously and deliberately invent a theology with the thought, "Let me see if I can make up or twist some theological principles to ensure that more people come to my chapel." At best, that might be a subconscious motivating factor that the priest isn't completely aware of. Even Bishop Kelly's, "We can't say the +Thuc bishops are valid, because then people might go there." was related more to the fact that they considered the CMRI to be an Old Catholic sect and didn't want people going there for that reason.
I understand the logic of the "una cuм" position, so it's not entirely outlandish. But the problem is that it makes no distinctions and views everything in black and white terms. "una cuм" is meant to be a profession of being Catholic, but material error regarding the identity of the pope does not undermine the formal intent to be united with the Catholic Church. Was it forbidden to assist at Masses offered by St. Vincent Ferrer, who undoubtedly put the name of the Antipope he mistakenly followed with the una cuм? Was St. Vincent Ferrer a schismatic because he erred regarding the identity of the pope. What about during those times when news didn't travel fast? Would I be forbidden to assist at the Mass of a priest who still thought that the previous pope was alive (though he had passed away) just because he hadn't gotten word of it yet? There's nothing magical about the "una cuм" form, that if you say it like an incantatation, the Mass becomes pleasing to God. Someone can be in material error and it doesn't make attending the Mass somehow sacrilegeous or schismatic. There's no one here putting the name of Kirill or the Coptic Orthodox "Pope" into the Canon and thereby professing adherence to a false religion. Even the Dimonds presented some solid research that the Church has permitted assisting at the Masses of various priests who were basically in schism.
Thank you to first bolded.
Second bolded: Not analogous. Anti-popes were Catholic.
-
"Objectively self-serving scheme"? That is purely a subjective judgment on your part.
I'm not convinced the anti-una cuм position is true or an error. Just because the Church has never had to deal with a similar situation doesn't mean it's an error.
Who's to say that assisting at a mass una cuм a heretic "pope" for decades is not a danger to one's soul? Where are the "fruits" of the una cuм SSPX? Perhaps doing so for decades tends towards eventual compromise with the Devil.
1. No, whether or not it's justifiable or good, objectively it serves the person who promotes it. That just is what it is. Now he might not INTEND that "self serving" but rather some higher motive -- but still, objectively, he's getting the benefit. That's what I mean by "objectively". We can only argue about whether or not he's JUSTIFIED in promoting the teaching, and whether or not his motives are base. We could also debate whether or not he willed that benefit as the PRIMARY motive, or a mere side effect of preaching "the truth". But the GOOD HE RECEIVES by promoting such a teaching? That's really beyond debate. Pure common sense.
But again, even if he were just "preaching the truth", he still SHOULD KNOW BETTER, see #3.
2. Even other sedevacantists didn't dare "go there" until Fr. C stepped up. Keep that in mind.
3. Who's to say? Certainly not Fr. Cekada. He is binding the souls of his Faithful to his own personal opinions and views. He is elevating his opinions to the level of dogma, and then binding his Faithful to follow these new "dogmas". That is for ME and anyone else to condemn!
4. Does attending an "una cuм" Mass lead to compromise with the devil? That would be speculation and opinion. But even if it did, it's not for Fr. Cekada to bind the Faithful to one of his opinions, as if it were Catholic dogma. That is just not an option. One cannot commit sin that good may come of it. THAT is a non-negotiable Catholic moral principle.
And yes, it's sinful for a priest to presume to excommunicate other Catholics, cleric and lay, and to forbid attendance at other "competing" Masses.
Fr. Cekada was a mere priest operating (under supplied jurisdiction, I might add) during a Crisis in the Church. It was not his place to usurp the role of Pope. Or to bind the consciences of his Faithful in matters of opinion. That is over-stepping both Catholic morality AND his authority as priest.
One of the risks/tendencies/fruits of sedevacantism? Maybe I shouldn't say that out loud, as it might start a sede vs. non-sede debate...
-
Second bolded: Not analogous. Anti-popes were Catholic.
It most certainly is analogous, demonstrating the difference between the formality vs. materiality of the name in the Canon. It's not primarily about the individual being Catholic but about the individual being the Pope and, respectively the bishop, under whose authority you're offering the Mass. Even with sedeprivationism, it would not be inappropriate to name the holder of the office in the Canon simply to indicate that you're in formal union with the papacy even if you think the individual only materially or just doubtfully holds the office. NO ONE is inserting the name of someone into the Canon whom they consider to be a non Catholic simpliciter.
In making this answer, you're begging the question about the non-Catholicity simpliciter of Jorge Bergoglio, as if it were dogmatically certain, thereby making the insertion of Bergoglio's name into the Canon tantamount to putting Kirill into the Canon. But there's no Traditional Catholic priest who's putting someone whom they KNOW and BELIEVE to be a non-Catholic into the Canon (whether or not you agree or disagree with them), and consequently with the formal intent to align oneself with something other than the Catholic Church ... bringing us back full circle to the formal-material distinction.
You're dogmatizing something two things here that have not been ruled upon by the Church. You have to argue that 1) Bergoglio is a heretic, and 2) a heretic can't be pope. You can argue until you're blue in the fact that both of these are certain, but it doesn't make either one dogmatically certain. Church has not declared Bergoglio to be a heretic. And, as much as SVs think St. Robert Bellarmine's position about a heretic pope being ipso facto deposed, the Church has not taught that opinion, and has not condemned Cajetan's deponendus position. Consequently, while they might be totally wrong, and wronger than wrong, Bellarmine's opinion can't be imposed on someone else's conscience, and their rejection of the Bellarmine opinion (or mistaken, to the point of being laughable, opinion that Salza and Siscoe were right in claiming that Bellarmine held the same position as Cajetan), etc. No matter how wrong they are, they're not wrong enough where their insertion of a V2 papal claimant into the Canon would constitute a formal adherence to some schism.
-
It most certainly is analogous, demonstrating the difference between the formality vs. materiality of the name in the Canon. It's not primarily about the individual being Catholic but about the individual being the Pope and, respectively the bishop, under whose authority you're offering the Mass. Even with sedeprivationism, it would not be inappropriate to name the holder of the office in the Canon simply to indicate that you're in formal union with the papacy even if you think the individual only materially or just doubtfully holds the office. NO ONE is inserting the name of someone into the Canon whom they consider to be a non Catholic simpliciter.
In making this answer, you're begging the question about the non-Catholicity simpliciter of Jorge Bergoglio, as if it were dogmatically certain, thereby making the insertion of Bergoglio's name into the Canon tantamount to putting Kirill into the Canon. But there's no Traditional Catholic priest who's putting someone whom they KNOW and BELIEVE to be a non-Catholic into the Canon (whether or not you agree or disagree with them), and consequently with the formal intent to align oneself with something other than the Catholic Church ... bringing us back full circle to the formal-material distinction.
At this point, I find that very hard to believe.
With that, I'm leaving this discussion before I regret entering it.
-
Could someone list the options in Cincinnati -- and then anyone else chime in with places that have more options, if they exist?
Besides St. Gertrude’s and Immaculate Conception (the two large sites):
Infant of Prague - Liberty Township, OH - Fr. Hall
St. Margaret Mary - Urbana, OH - Fr. Hall
Our Lady of Victories - Fairfield, OH - Bp. Ramolla
Our Lady of the Assumption - Walton, KY - SSPX
St. Therese - Lebanon, OH - CMRI
Holy Family - Dayton, OH - FSSP
If you extend out further into Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana, there are a plethora of options.
-
At this point, I find that very hard to believe.
This is just plain silly. So there are Trad priests out there who think, "I know for sure that Bergoglio is not Catholic and is not the pope, but I'll put his name in here anyway, thereby professing my adherence to this false religion." This is getting to the absurd point of uprooting all common sense.
-
This is just plain silly. So there are Trad priests out there who think, "I know for sure that Bergoglio is not Catholic and is not the pope, but I'll put his name in here anyway, thereby professing my adherence to this false religion." This is getting to the absurd point of uprooting all common sense.
Now, now Lad. You didn't write the underlined part in your original quote that I responded to. That priest would be a sede. It would be absurd for him to put his name in the Canon.
But yes, I find it harder and harder to believe that any non sede priests and laity believe Bergoglio is Catholic.
-
Now, now Lad. You didn't write the underlined part in your original quote that I responded to. That priest would be a sede. It would be absurd for him to put his name in the Canon.
But yes, I find it harder and harder to believe that any non sede priests and laity believe Bergoglio is Catholic.
Obviously no SV priest is going to put Bergoglio in the Canon. We're talking about "una cuм" Masses in general.
And I agree that Jorge is no pope, but at the same time, until we have certainty from the Church about it, I can't impose my conscience on some priest who does insert Bergoglio into the Canon, nor am I responsible for whether he does or does not put him in there, and my assistance at such a Mass does not make me party to some kind of schism.
So the false dichotomy of Fr. Cekada's thinking on the matter can be expressed in this way ... if you see absolutely no difference between some Trad Catholic going to a Greek Orthodox Liturgy and going to an "una cuм" Mass offered by a Traditional Catholic priest.
-
And Fr Cekada is not Martin Luther nor John Calvin. No matter how much some folks would like to think so.
Fr Cekada is similar to Luther and Calvin in that he didn't "stay in his lane" and perform his priestly duties, but took it upon himself to make arbitrary rules, based on his own theological arguments, which confused the faithful, started rivalries and distracted people from "the basics". In a time of chaos, he created more chaos. He took advantage of the lack of authority to blaze his own path. Of course, I don't think Fr C is a heretic but he was grossly in error on this issue. And he was stubborn about it.
I'm not convinced the anti-una cuм position is true or an error.
:facepalm: So you're going to defend something that you don't even believe 100%? Typical woman - can't separate the prelate from the (false) principle. So you blindly defend the prelate. :facepalm:
Also, it's never been proven that the "una cuм" prayer is ANYTHING MORE than praying for the pope/bishop. Most pre-V2 sources explain the prayer this way; only Fr Cekada re-interpreted the prayer to mean "being in communion with" pope x, y or z. So it's perfectly reasonable for priests to include the pope/bishop and pray FOR THEM, which is what the "plain english" reading of the prayer says. (It even includes the phrase "and all those orthodox believers" which means the bishop/pope who isn't orthodox isn't included).
I 100% reject Fr Cekada's whole "in communion with" idea. It's never been proven nor does it jive with what the prayer says.
-
:facepalm: So you're going to defend something that you don't even believe 100%? Typical woman - can't separate the prelate from the (false) principle. So you blindly defend the prelate. :facepalm:
Way to make it personal. Keeping it klassy, PV.
I actually lean against his position. Why should that mean I shouldn't defend him when others are clearly assigning malicious motives for coming to his position?
-
https://cmri.org/pdfs/response-to-stephen-heiner.pdf
Here's Bp. Pivarunas' response to Stephen Heiner. It makes sense, and it doesn't defend anything that Heiner says.
-
I actually lean against his position.
So you admit the whole "position" is optional. Therefore, it's not a doctrine, nor "of the Faith". It's pure speculation. Therefore it's wrong to impose it.
Why should that mean I shouldn't defend him when others are clearly assigning malicious motives for coming to his position?
See, in saner times, when the Church was working properly, if any priest started coming up with his own "opinions", he'd be told, simply to "Shut up and stop it." If he continued, he'd be disciplined by his local bishop. If he persisted, he'd be removed from his parish and sent to some monastery.
At best, Fr Cekada/+Dolan are only guilty of some kind of intellectual pride and (to a lessor degree) the fallout from his imprudent, rash and pompous position. At worse, they're guilty of being an agent of chaos and trying to divide Tradition.
The idea that the una cuм prohibition "only applies to sedevacantists" (as you and many others consistently argue) is the definition of schismatic. It's saying that Trad sedevacantists follow different rules than all other Trads. This is a MAJOR problem.
Anyone with a brain can understand that if you "draw a line in the sand" you necessarily invite a fight, a division and a split. Maybe it's malicious, or prideful; or just unregulated bitter zeal. Only Fr Cekada and +Dolan (and others) can answer that. But it's definitely wrong.
-
Also, it's never been proven that the "una cuм" prayer is ANYTHING MORE than praying for the pope/bishop. Most pre-V2 sources explain the prayer this way; only Fr Cekada re-interpreted the prayer to mean "being in communion with" pope x, y or z.
I disagree with this. "una cuм" clearly states that the priest is offering the Holy Sacrifice in union with the Pope and his bishop. But it speaks to formal intent, even if there's material error about the name he actually puts in there. It states the intention to be in union with the Church and subject to a bishop, with filling in the name being more along the lines of, "who currently happens to be named [Jorge]". Those Traditional Priests who insert the V2 papal claimants (even if they are not popes, and I don't think they are) are clearly not stating, "I wish to adhere to the Conciliar Church and all its Modernist errors."
Nor is there even an implicit theological statement there, as motives could range from ...
he's certainly the pope to
he's probably the pope to
he may be the pope but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt to
I don't think he's the pope but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt to
he's not formally the pope but materiall the pope and so based on that I'll put his name in there to
he's the visible sign of unity for the Church (Father Chazal's position)
And even if the priest has a certain theological approach to the Crisis, simply assisting at his Mass does not make you an adherent of his own personal position. It's ironic that Father Cekada (rightly) denounced the SSPV approach to CMRI as being akin to thinking of heresy as being transmitted like "cooties" but then doing the same with the una cuм issue, that if some priest mentions Bergoglio in the Canon, this puts the faithful who assist at the priest's Mass into formal communion with Jorge. That's nonsense. It's not some magic phrase that establishes "communion" by merely pronouncing it. Under normal circuмsances, the faithful don't even hear the Canon. So are we now obliged to get close and eavesdrop in on the Canon to hear whether or not Jorge is mentioned?
-
Cleveland/Akron area (all within a one-hour drive from me):
Tridentine (Traditional) --
St. Peregrine (SSPX) -- Richfield, OH
Immaculate Heart of Mary (SSPX-aligned) -- Akron, OH
Sacred Heart of Jesus (CMRI) -- Akron, OH
St. Therese of the Child Jesus (SSPV) -- Parma, OH
Our Lady of Sorrows (SSPX) -- Girard, OH
** Immaculate Heart of Mary and Sacred Heart have regular daily Masses, but the others are mostly weekend and Holy Days, but I believe the plan is to build a priory at St. Peregrine (Richfield, OH ... halfway between Akron and Cleveland). Father Carley of Immaculate Heart is closing in on being 90 years of age, and SSPX asked him to contribute to the new priory, as I think the intention would be to have the priests at the Richfield priory. IMO, there's a very high probability that SSPX will close IHM after Father Carley is unable to function, sell the property, and tell everyone to go to St. Peregrine in Richfield.
Tridentine (Motu) -- (Cleveland bishop has ignored Bergoglio's demands to shut them down, as these are all at parish churches except the FSSP)
Queen of the Holy Rosary (FSSP) -- Vienna, OH (daily Mass + several preists)
St. Paul -- Akron, OH
St. Sebastian -- Akron, OH
Immaculate Conception -- Cleveland, OH
St. Stephen -- Cleveland, OH
St. Rocco -- Cleveland, OH
St. Ignatius of Antioch -- Cleveland, OH
Mary, Queen of Peace -- Cleveland, OH
St. Elizabeth of Hungary (weekday only) -- Cleveland, OH
Immaculate Conception (weekday only) -- Willoughby, OH
Sacred Heart of Jesus (first Saturday and first Sunday only) -- South Euclid, OH
Eastern Rite -- about 15 or so within an hour of where I live (Ukrainian, Byzantine/Ruthenian, Melkite, and Maronite ... with Maronite being very modernized, the rest mostly OK)
It's indeed sweet up your way, where TLM availability is concerned, as well as Eastern Rite churches.
Northeastern Ohio is my Plan D or Plan E, as far as how I would wind up these final decades of my life, if for some reason I didn't stay in my present circuмstances, and not to be a "carpetbagger in reverse", but home prices are about as cheap as it gets, though for the sad reason of the decline in the area's once-robust economy. So, Lad, if my life would ever "go south" (no pun intended) in a bad way, forcing the sale of my homes so that I'd have enough money to supplement my pensions... you might have me as a neighbor.
-
Besides St. Gertrude’s and Immaculate Conception (the two large sites):
Infant of Prague - Liberty Township, OH - Fr. Hall
St. Margaret Mary - Urbana, OH - Fr. Hall
Our Lady of Victories - Fairfield, OH - Bp. Ramolla
Our Lady of the Assumption - Walton, KY - SSPX
St. Therese - Lebanon, OH - CMRI
Holy Family - Dayton, OH - FSSP
If you extend out further into Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana, there are a plethora of options.
There are very small chapels in Chillicothe and Wheelersburg (Portsmouth), the latter being the closest TLM to the Charleston-Huntington (WV) urban corridor.
-
I disagree with this. "una cuм" clearly states that the priest is offering the Holy Sacrifice in union with the Pope and his bishop. But it speaks to formal intent, even if there's material error about the name he actually puts in there. It states the intention to be in union with the Church and subject to a bishop, with filling in the name being more along the lines of, "who currently happens to be named [Jorge]". Those Traditional Priests who insert the V2 papal claimants (even if they are not popes, and I don't think they are) are clearly not stating, "I wish to adhere to the Conciliar Church and all its Modernist errors."
The prayer makes it crystal clear that the purpose is to pray in union with the pope/bishop, assuming they are "orthodox believers". If they are not, then the fruits of the mass don't apply to them. One is praying WITH the pope/bishop (in a general sense...for their office, as a sign of unity) and also FOR them (specifically...only if they're orthodox). Catholics can be "in union with" the papal office, with still disagreeing with the specific pope (or anti-pope). But Fr Cekada ignored this distinction.
It's not some magic phrase that establishes "communion" by merely pronouncing it. Under normal circuмstances, the faithful don't even hear the Canon. So are we now obliged to get close and eavesdrop in on the Canon to hear whether or not Jorge is mentioned?
Right. Fr Cekada/+Dolan wanted to "draw a line in the sand" and make Trads decide on sedevacantism. This "una cuм" farce was their way to force people to make a decision openly. They took advantage of the the laity's dependence upon them as clerics, in the wild west days of Traditionalism, and tried to take control of the O.K. Corral. Now Trads have to fight on multiple fronts - vs the Modernism of new-rome and the puritanism of some Sedes.
-
Sorry 2V but yes, the Church in fact does formally condemn, "for whatever reason," the omitting of the name of the pope in the Canon of the Mass in Ex Quo. (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm) What sedes have done, is convince themselves that their reason for omitting his name anyway, does not fall into the Church's meaning of "whatever reason."
.
:laugh1:
This is hilarious! You can't be serious?!
-
.
:laugh1:
This is hilarious! You can't be serious?!
Alas, he is. It's infuriating sometimes. Yes, the Church forbids omitting the name of "THE POPE" from the Canon of the Mass, "the pope" being the operative expression here. He begs the question so badly that Jorge is "the Pope" that he can't see through the blinders enough to realize how stupid this is. I honestly don't know what else to say to this type of reasoning I've seen from him before.
In any case, St. Vincent Ferrer ommitted the name of "the pope" during his Masses also.
-
I'll go next --
San Antonio, TX (10th largest city in the USA), within a 1.5 hour drive of the city center:
St. Joseph's Chapel (weekly Mass plus Holy Days), San Antonio (SSPX)
St. Dominic's Chapel (monthly Mass), Seguin (Resistance)
St. Timothy Catholic Church, San Antonio (Indult)
-end of list-
Nearest Sedevacantist or Independent chapel of any size: 3.75 hours away outside Houston, "St. Jude's"
All Eastern Rites: none
FSSP: none
Institute of Christ the King: none
SSPV: none
CMRI: none
Pfeifferites: none
Dolan/Cekada associated sedes: none
See why I am impressed by the variety in Cincinnati, OH?
There IS a sede (Cekada/McGuire affiliated) chapel in Austin. https://www.olosorrows.org. It's one of three Mass options in all of Austin. The only one if you're not comfortable attending indult and Maronite Masses.
-
There IS a sede (Cekada/McGuire affiliated) chapel in Austin. https://www.olosorrows.org. It's one of three Mass options in all of Austin. The only one if you're not comfortable attending indult and Maronite Masses.
Well, I stand corrected. I have never heard of it before today. Apparently they have really bad search engine position and/or don't advertise very well.
I looked at the website and I noted 2 things: 1. They were founded in 2019, so my information on chapels might be outdated. 2. They only get monthly Mass.
The SSPX has a hotel room in Austin where they have Mass twice a month. It's been that way for well over 25 years. I have no idea how far back that arrangement goes. Which is amazing, considering that Austin is the 11th largest city in the United States.
-
The SSPX has a hotel room in Austin where they have Mass twice a month. It's been that way for well over 25 years.
Those faithful can move to St. Mary's to take advantage of the new basilica being built there ... if they don't like the hotel room. Those new building projects are more about ego and self-promotion than about serving the faithful. They could have built nearly 100 million-dollar chapels for the money they're wasting on the new seminary and at St. Mary's.
-
For everyone’s information I’ll mention the Spokane, Washington and Coeur d’Alene, Idaho area, each state’s second largest city. They are 30 miles apart on I-90 with Post Falls, Idaho in the middle.
My list may not be complete, but here is what I know of:
CMRI at Mount St. Michael’s in Spokane and in Rathdrum, ID (8 miles north of Post Falls). They also have missions in Clarkston and Kennewick, WA.
SSPX Immaculate Conception chapel in Post Falls, ID. In my understanding their priests also serve a Carmelite convent chapel in Spokane and a mission chapel in St. Maries, ID (50 miles south of Coeur d’Alene).
Our Lady of Guadalupe in Spokane, independent. Saint Gertrude the Great in OH (Bp. Dolan) lists it as a recommended chapel.
Saints Cyril and Methodius Byzantine (Ruthenian) Eastern Catholic Church in Spokane Valley.
Queen of Heaven parish (Spokane diocese) in Sprague, WA (30 miles south of Spokane). There is a Benedictine monk there and two novices. There is also a very musically talented family in the area and a High Mass is offered every Sunday at 10:30 AM, and daily Low Mass.
Eight choices of "different persuasions" within about a 50 mile radius in an area with a decent economy and great natural beauty. The area is just a little over 100 miles from the Canadian boarder and enjoys ALL FOUR seasons. Those of a more "southern orientation" may not appreciate the fourth season we have.
-
For everyone’s information I’ll mention the Spokane, Washington and Coeur d’Alene, Idaho area, each state’s second largest city. They are 30 miles apart on I-90 with Post Falls, Idaho in the middle.
My list may not be complete, but here is what I know of:
CMRI at Mount St. Michael’s in Spokane and in Rathdrum, ID (8 miles north of Post Falls). They also have missions in Clarkston and Kennewick, WA.
SSPX Immaculate Conception chapel in Post Falls, ID. In my understanding their priests also serve a Carmelite convent chapel in Spokane and a mission chapel in St. Maries, ID (50 miles south of Coeur d’Alene).
Our Lady of Guadalupe in Spokane, independent. Saint Gertrude the Great in OH (Bp. Dolan) lists it as a recommended chapel.
Saints Cyril and Methodius Byzantine (Ruthenian) Eastern Catholic Church in Spokane Valley.
Queen of Heaven parish (Spokane diocese) in Sprague, WA (30 miles south of Spokane). There is a Benedictine monk there and two novices. There is also a very musically talented family in the area and a High Mass is offered every Sunday at 10:30 AM, and daily Low Mass.
Eight choices of "different persuasions" within about a 50 mile radius in an area with a decent economy and great natural beauty. The area is just a little over 100 miles from the Canadian boarder and enjoys ALL FOUR seasons. Those of a more "southern orientation" may not appreciate the fourth season we have.
I forgot to add St. Joan of Arc, FSSP, in Post Falls, Idaho. They have moved from an older purchased building in Coeur d'Alene to a new campus in Post Falls. They have five Masses on Sudays and two daily Masses.
So, there are nine choices representing six different "perspectives" if you will, within a 50 mile radius. There may also be a "resistance" Mass but I don't know. I didn't include the two CMRI missions in the count as they are over 100 miles from Spokane. With the exception of the SSPX mission in St. Maries they all have weekly Sunday and daily Masses.
-
Way to make it personal. Keeping it klassy, PV.
You're right, I should not have made it personal. I apologize.
-
You're right, I should not have made it personal. I apologize.
Apology accepted PV. Thank you.