I would like some clarification on some observations I have made on the Una cuм issue.
First, were Masses said by the state appointed clergy in France after the revolution illicit or invalid? It is my understanding that state appointed bishops were named in the Te Igitur. Didn't popes declare the attendance of those Masses, albeit valid, to be forbidden?
Secondly, missals from the the 19th century in the UK at times named kings, which of course names the head of a schismatic church, since the king of England is also the head of the Church of England. Again valid, but what was Church's stance on this?
Finally, is the pro Una cuм issue today even analogous to the Great Western Schism as the Dimonds argue? The GWS was an issue of who was legitimately elected. To my knowledge, none of them were blasphemous, sacrilegious heretics.
Thoughts?
Topic: Una cuм History (Read 10224 times)