Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Simeon on May 06, 2025, 04:48:51 AM
-
Greetings,
My brother lives in Pittsburgh, and is leaning orthodox. I'm trying to steer him to the Catholic Church.
I've got him interested in Ukrainian Catholic priest, Fr. Jason Charron.
Should I be worried about the validity of Fr. Charron's Orders?
Thank you!
-
Not unless there's a Novus Ordo transfer ... extremely rare among Ukrainian, but I have seen it a few times with Byzantine Ruthenian.
-
https://youtu.be/RAsgqxvqeqQ
Bishop who ordained him: wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mikhail_Moskal (http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mikhail_Moskal)
-
Yes, I knew Bishop Moskal ... in Parma. He was a good man. I know the brother of the current Major Archbishop, in Akron ... with whom I've had a few differences, though nothing where I'd consider him a heretic.
-
Oh, thank you both!!!
I will watch the video now!!!!
-
I believe I met Fr. Charron once. Seems to be a good priest and orthodox (lower case), rejecting Bergoglio's heresies but more R&R in view of papacy. He's married, as are a lot of Eastern priests.
-
I believe I met Fr. Charron once. Seems to be a good priest and orthodox (lower case), rejecting Bergoglio's heresies but more R&R in view of papacy. He's married, as are a lot of Eastern priests.
I read he has seven children, God bless him!
-
I believe I met Fr. Charron once. Seems to be a good priest and orthodox (lower case), rejecting Bergoglio's heresies but more R&R in view of papacy. He's married, as are a lot of Eastern priests.
He also takes down Lofton. An immensely good work!!!
-
I read he has seven children, God bless him!
Yes. His wife's name is Hilyna, I think that's how you spell it.
-
I've got one more question. I presume that the Byzantine Rite has some kind of an una cuм in its formulary. Is that correct?
I ask because there's a monthly UCGG Mass in my area, at a novus ordo church. I'm wondering if I could go there for an extra Mass per month.
It seems an Eastern Rite una cuм is less odious than an SSPX una cuм. But maybe I'm just being extremely dishonest.
-
Sort of ... it's not quite the same "una cuм" formula, but they pray for the "Pope of Rome".
I disagree with the "una cuм" position anyway, since it's not what the dogmatic anti-una-cuм types hold it to be. Ironically, one of the two or three most anti-una-cuм group happens to be that of Bishop Sanborn. But, as a sedeprivationist, one could EASILY make a case for inserting the name there due to his being a material pope. Fr. Chazal, who's position is a slight variation on sedeprivationism, refers to the [material] pope as a "visible sign" of unity, i.e. just saying, "I'm a Catholic and profess submission to the pope."
St. Vincent Ferrer offered his Masses "una cuм [the wrong guy]" for quite some time. In no way were those Masses displeasing to God due to material error.
Many moderate SVs, SSPV and CMRI, believe that you're not somehow formally adhering to Bergoglio's schismatic AntiChurch by assisting at a Mass where the priest puts his name in there. Besides that, what the priest does is between him and God.
Dimond Brothers had a good study on the matter, and they are about as dogmatic SV as they get.
I have no issues assisting at Ukrainian Catholic churches if I feel the need to benefit from the Sacraments.
-
If I were a priest, I'd actually adopt an in-between, "sede-doubtist" position, where I would offer the Mass ...
una cuм famulo tuo Papa Nostro
... but then omit the actual name, indicating that I am in doubt about who that happens to be. This to me would be tantamount to the expression of the formal intention to submit to the Pope without having determined with the requisite certainty who that actually happens to be. I don't think I could insert "Francisco" there in the context of the cultoribus fidei, the keepers / preservers of the faith and not feel as if the Mass were being contaminated with a lie.
-
I've got one more question. I presume that the Byzantine Rite has some kind of an una cuм in its formulary. Is that correct?
I ask because there's a monthly UCGG Mass in my area, at a novus ordo church. I'm wondering if I could go there for an extra Mass per month.
It seems an Eastern Rite una cuм is less odious than an SSPX una cuм. But maybe I'm just being extremely dishonest.
I would unfortunately have to avoid if it's a Novus Ordo church because that means there is regularly sacrilege committed there
-
Sort of ... it's not quite the same "una cuм" formula, but they pray for the "Pope of Rome".
I disagree with the "una cuм" position anyway, since it's not what the dogmatic anti-una-cuм types hold it to be. Ironically, one of the two or three most anti-una-cuм group happens to be that of Bishop Sanborn. But, as a sedeprivationist, one could EASILY make a case for inserting the name there due to his being a material pope. Fr. Chazal, who's position is a slight variation on sedeprivationism, refers to the [material] pope as a "visible sign" of unity, i.e. just saying, "I'm a Catholic and profess submission to the pope."
St. Vincent Ferrer offered his Masses "una cuм [the wrong guy]" for quite some time. In no way were those Masses displeasing to God due to material error.
Many moderate SVs, SSPV and CMRI, believe that you're not somehow formally adhering to Bergoglio's schismatic AntiChurch by assisting at a Mass where the priest puts his name in there. Besides that, what the priest does is between him and God.
Dimond Brothers had a good study on the matter, and they are about as dogmatic SV as they get.
I have no issues assisting at Ukrainian Catholic churches if I feel the need to benefit from the Sacraments.
I really appreciate your thoughts here. For me, the "SSPX una cuм" is absolutely perfidious, because it expressly signifies a palpable reality - their miserable compromise and betrayal of Christ for 30 pieces of silver.
I regularly attend an SSPV mission. They certainly do not forbid attendance at the SSPX, but if you ask their advice, they will counsel you to avoid it. I find the positions of the Sanborn group to be rigid and arrogant. Indeed, as you note, they are not as pristinely logically consistent as they like to feign.
Conversely, the Eastern Catholic una cuм seems more a formal rejection of the schism, in its essence. It seems the Eastern churches have a history and even a charism of being very independent of Rome, very much absorbed by their own cultures, traditions, and rites of worship, excepting their submission to the doctrines which the schismatics reject. Yet again, I may simply be trying to deceive myself in order to receive Holy Communion more often.
-
I really appreciate your thoughts here. For me, the "SSPX una cuм" is absolutely perfidious ...
That's absurd. Then at the same time you're sending someone to the Ukrainians who profess to be in Communion with the Conciliar Popes, regardless of the technicality of whether there's a formula you can live with. That's totally Pharisaical.
You're more obsessed with (your interpretation of) the wording of a formula rather than with the reality. Ukrainians are more "in union with" the Conciliars than the SSPX are. There can be a hundred reasons for putting the name of Bergoglio into the Canon short of professing adherence to his errors, from "give him the benefit of the doubt" to "only the Church has the authority to despose a pope", some variation of sedeprivationist thinking, such as he's the visible source of unity, to actual sedeprivationism that can justify doing this. I know of no SSPX priest who adheres to Jorge's errors (well, except on the points where the SVs are even worse, such as regarding EENS). That's why they're in the SSPX and not FSSP ... apart from one or two perhaps who went to SSPX because they got kicked out by FSSP.
Focus on the reality of the situation and not your interpretation of the forumla. Church's attitude about the matter is not yours.
Your language about "odious" and "perfidious" are dead giveaways for how you're operating on pure emotion. I despise and regularely denounce the Conciliar heresies as much as the next guy, but that shouldn't prevent me from rationally considering the matter.
It is possible for a priest to put the name in there in good faith without that insertion of the name being tantamount to professing adherence to the Conciliar errors, for any number of reasons, in which case it would amount to a material error in the same category as when St. Vincent Ferrer put the wrong name in the Canon.
-
I would unfortunately have to avoid if it's a Novus Ordo church because that means there is regularly sacrilege committed there
Thank you for that. I too am considering this problem. Again, this may be self-deception, but I think I can come up with a counterexample.
I attend Mass in a disgusting hotel conference room. I know for a fact that protestant covens meet there for their false worship. Also all manner of secular events take place there. This does not stop our priests from offering Mass.
Long before the SSPX betrayal became apparent, anyone who went on Pilgrimage with them to Rome attended their Masses celebrated at Roman churches, by permission of the illegitimate authorities - churches long ago desecrated by the novus ordo false worship. I've never heard anyone ever complain about this.
When SV clergy travel to Europe, do they offer Mass in these once Catholic churches? Now I'm curious. I know for sure that they visit them.
Also, in hotel rooms, there take place the most obscene acts imaginable, and yet priests will stay in those rooms, and even offer Mass in them.
-
That's absurd. Then at the same time you're sending someone to the Ukrainians who profess to be in Communion with the Conciliar Popes, regardless of the technicality of whether there's a formula you can live with. That's totally Pharisaical.
You're more obsessed with (your interpretation of) the wording of a formula rather than with the reality. Ukrainians are more "in union with" the Conciliars than the SSPX are. There can be a hundred reasons for putting the name of Bergoglio into the Canon short of professing adherence to his errors, from "give him the benefit of the doubt" to "only the Church has the authority to despose a pope", some variation of sedeprivationist thinking, such as he's the visible source of unity, to actual sedeprivationism that can justify doing this. I know of no SSPX priest who adheres to Jorge's errors (well, except on the points where the SVs are even worse, such as regarding EENS). That's why they're in the SSPX and not FSSP ... apart from one or two perhaps who went to SSPX because they got kicked out by FSSP.
Focus on the reality of the situation and not your interpretation of the forumla. Church's attitude about the matter is not yours.
Your language about "odious" and "perfidious" are dead giveaways for how you're operating on pure emotion. I despise and regularely denounce the Conciliar heresies as much as the next guy, but that shouldn't prevent me from rationally considering the matter.
It is possible for a priest to put the name in there in good faith without that insertion of the name being tantamount to professing adherence to the Conciliar errors, for any number of reasons, in which case it would amount to a material error in the same category as when St. Vincent Ferrer put the wrong name in the Canon.
No, I think there's a real distinction between an SSPX una cuм, and the Eastern Rite una cuм. The SSPX was founded on the principle of resistance to Vatican II. Anyone who bought tickets, believed that was the show they paid for. People left the novus ordo structure completely, in order to align themselves with the SSPX position, which seemed to be "No Quarter!" When I left the novus ordo, I believed I was entering a body that was entirely severed from it.
What is odious and perfidious about the SSPX is its deception and deceit. They hide what they are doing. They say they are one thing, and are quite another.
The Eastern Catholics are like the indult crowd - logically consistent and absolutely transparent. They say, "That's the Pope of Rome," and they pray in union with him. Most of them are in good conscience. How can the SSPX be in good conscience when it is lying through its teeth?
Note that my use of epithets are not directed to the una cuм position, as such, but to the SSPX deception, as such.
Furthermore, I'm not obsessed with wording or formulae. I'm looking for a real distinction in essence - what it means to be in union with Rome - as between the Latin and the Eastern Rites. If I'm deceiving myself, it is on the nature of essence, not ritual form.
Lastly, can a woman post anything on here without being accused of being emotional? In your above replies, you do seem to make distinctions based on essence. I'm doing the same. You often use heated and very colorful language. Does that make you illogical and emotional? You often call people names in heated arguments. Is that kind of emotional? Are you calling me emotional because you are a sedevacantist who attends an SSPX Mass? Did I trigger you? You see, it's all nonsense to put someone's thoughts down as emotional without allowing them to clarify themselves.
-
Not only the formal intent of those who insert the name of the Pope to profess communion with the Catholic papacy, but there's a lot of precedent where the Popes did not condemn assisting at Masses of even heretics and compromisers. (discussed in the link and the audio below)
Cardinal Cushing was every bit as much a heretic as the Conciliar papal claimants, and so by this logic you couldn't assist at Mass in the Archdiocese of Boston because people were inserting the name of Cushing in the Canon. That shows the absurdity of this. So, the priests who put the name of Cushing in the Canon were making no doctrinal statement but simply put his name in there because he was their bishop (despite being a heretic). Maybe they embraced his heresies or maybe they did not. But the mere insertion of the name does not express whether or not they adhered to his errors.
While the SSPV may say it's "better" to avoid it, they absolutely do not prohibit it. I know of one person who's a member of one SSPV chapel who actually teaches at the school of an "una cuм" priest and attends daily Mass there, receives the Sacraments, etc. SSPV priests know about it and have never objected to it. Since they have the correct Catholic attitude about this. Trust me, if the SSPV felt there was anything wrong with it, they would not hesitate to say so, but would refuse the Sacrament from people ... as they do this regularly on a variety of issues, excessively, to an extreme.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/una-cuм-mass/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwe2b-YZfG4
-
I've long held that it's not the problem of the faithful to determine or figure out whether or why the priest puts Bergoglio's name in the Canon, and that it's between God and the priest. Faithful have a right to receive the Sacraments, and so they absolutely could go to Masses "una cuм" Cushing or now "una cuм" [whoever the next Antipope would be], or "una cuм" whomever St. Vincent Ferrer put in the Canon. Padre Pio put Montini's name in the Canon of his Masses.
But this quote from Pope St. Athanasius II backs this up ...
For if the rays of that visible sun are not stained by contact with any pollution when they pass over the foulest places, much less is the virtue of him who made that visible sun fettered by any unworthiness in the minister. Therefore, then, this person has only injured himself by wickedly administering the good. For the inviolable sacrament, which was given through him, held the perfection of its virtue for others.
While this refers in context to priests who were ordained by the heretic in question (after he became a heretic) ... the principle is that those receiving the Sacraments with the proper dispositions are not somehow infected or "injured" by the reception of them.
There were MANY Modernist/heretic priests around even before Vatican II, and those faithful who assisted at their Masses were not polluted, contaminated, or injured by their heresies. In fact, if you refused to assist at such Masses due to your contention that Cusing's a heretic and his name was in the Mass, you would have been judged guilty of having committed mortal sin for failing to meet your Sunday obligation by any priest out there at the time for not assisting at the Mass.
And the question of "una cuм" isn't even one of heresy. So, if you put the name in there because, say, you adhere to Cajetan's opinion that a Pope must be ministerially deposed by the Church before he loses office ... that makes you a heretic? Last time I checked, Cajetan's opinion has not been condemned as heretical. If you put the name in there because, while you have doubts, you feel you dont' have the authority to make that determination? If you put the name in there because for one reason or another (which although mistaken is quite sincere and arrived at in good faith) you've concluded that the man is Pope, even if a very bad or even heretical one, who will be judged later by competent authority? If you're a sedeprivationist and put the name in there because he's at least materially the Pope (dovetailing with the Cajetan opinion), are you a heretic and is that Mass sacrilegous and is it forbidden for the faithful to attend that Mass? Answer to all of these is a clear no.
-
Not only the formal intent of those who insert the name of the Pope to profess communion with the Catholic papacy, but there's a lot of precedent where the Popes did not condemn assisting at Masses of even heretics and compromisers. (discussed in the link and the audio below)
Cardinal Cushing was every bit as much a heretic as the Conciliar papal claimants, and so by this logic you couldn't assist at Mass in the Archdiocese of Boston because people were inserting the name of Cushing in the Canon. That shows the absurdity of this. So, the priests who put the name of Cushing in the Canon were making no doctrinal statement but simply put his name in there because he was their bishop (despite being a heretic). Maybe they embraced his heresies or maybe they did not. But the mere insertion of the name does not express whether or not they adhered to his errors.
While the SSPV may say it's "better" to avoid it, they absolutely do not prohibit it. I know of one person who's a member of one SSPV chapel who actually teaches at the school of an "una cuм" priest and attends daily Mass there, receives the Sacraments, etc. SSPV priests know about it and have never objected to it. Since they have the correct Catholic attitude about this. Trust me, if the SSPV felt there was anything wrong with it, they would not hesitate to say so, but would refuse the Sacrament from people ... as they do this regularly on a variety of issues, excessively, to an extreme.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/una-cuм-mass/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwe2b-YZfG4
Thank you for your very unemotional reply! LOL!!!!!
Indeed, many of the folk who attend our hotel Masses openly attend the SSPX chapel when the SSPV is not in town. It's a non issue. I also did that for a while. And yes, I agree! They'd withhold Communion if they thought it a no no. I think they allow SSPX attendance in order to differentiate themselves from Sanborn and his dogmatic SV position. Talk about self-serving, pragmatic nonsense!
Boiled down to the bones, every trad position is a self justification narrative and a marketing schema. Same goes for the Dimonds. They have ejected themselves out of all traditional Latin Rite venues because of their own positions. Thus, I presume they attend Eastern Catholic Liturgies, una cuм, in order to receive the Sacraments. Wherefore they are forced to defend themselves and their una cuм position - seemingly so self-contradictory -and thus we are treated to more self-serving, pragmatic nonsense.
Ultimately we are on our own to discern and determine for ourselves what to do to obtain sacramental grace and to remain faithful to Holy Mother Church. What a chastisement!
All that being said, I'll give your proffered video a listen. :)
-
Thank you for that. I too am considering this problem. Again, this may be self-deception, but I think I can come up with a counterexample.
I attend Mass in a disgusting hotel conference room. I know for a fact that protestant covens meet there for their false worship. Also all manner of secular events take place there. This does not stop our priests from offering Mass.
Long before the SSPX betrayal became apparent, anyone who went on Pilgrimage with them to Rome attended their Masses celebrated at Roman churches, by permission of the illegitimate authorities - churches long ago desecrated by the novus ordo false worship. I've never heard anyone ever complain about this.
When SV clergy travel to Europe, do they offer Mass in these once Catholic churches? Now I'm curious. I know for sure that they visit them.
Also, in hotel rooms, there take place the most obscene acts imaginable, and yet priests will stay in those rooms, and even offer Mass in them.
I think the difference is that a priest saying mass in a hotel room, airport, town hall, etc. is going to be bringing his own consecrated altar stone, which as far as I know is required for a licit mass (if not using a consecrated set altar). Any problems with a location that has been used for sinful purposes (e.g. Hotel room) can probably be solved with a blessing or simple exorcism, and that is most likely what happens in those situations. But I'm not even sure if that is absolutely necessary as long there is a consecrated altar..I think the greater concern is the altar as that is where the Holy Sacrifice is celebrated
That would be unfortunate if the SSPX used NO churches without reconsecrating the altar. I do believe I have seen some criticism of the sspx using churches with diocesan permission in some states, but it may have been directed more towards them being on friendly terms with the NO than the altar issue
-
I've long held that it's not the problem of the faithful to determine or figure out whether or why the priest puts Bergoglio's name in the Canon, and that it's between God and the priest. Faithful have a right to receive the Sacraments, and so they absolutely could go to Masses "una cuм" Cushing or now "una cuм" [whoever the next Antipope would be], or "una cuм" whomever St. Vincent Ferrer put in the Canon. Padre Pio put Montini's name in the Canon of his Masses.
The problem of the faithful is the incessant cacophony of confusing and contradictory decretals, condemnations, withholdings of Sacraments, threats, ostracizations, positions, deceits, lies, misleadings, etc, at the hands of the warring, territorial, divisive, self-serving trad clergy.
They prey on us like carrion birds!!!
-
I've long held that it's not the problem of the faithful to determine or figure out whether or why the priest puts Bergoglio's name in the Canon, and that it's between God and the priest. Faithful have a right to receive the Sacraments, and so they absolutely could go to Masses "una cuм" Cushing or now "una cuм" [whoever the next Antipope would be], or "una cuм" whomever St. Vincent Ferrer put in the Canon. Padre Pio put Montini's name in the Canon of his Masses.
But this quote from Pope St. Athanasius II backs this up ...
While this refers in context to priests who were ordained by the heretic in question (after he became a heretic) ... the principle is that those receiving the Sacraments with the proper dispositions are not somehow infected or "injured" by the reception of them.
There were MANY Modernist/heretic priests around even before Vatican II, and those faithful who assisted at their Masses were not polluted, contaminated, or injured by their heresies. In fact, if you refused to assist at such Masses due to your contention that Cusing's a heretic and his name was in the Mass, you would have been judged guilty of having committed mortal sin for failing to meet your Sunday obligation by any priest out there at the time for not assisting at the Mass.
And the question of "una cuм" isn't even one of heresy. So, if you put the name in there because, say, you adhere to Cajetan's opinion that a Pope must be ministerially deposed by the Church before he loses office ... that makes you a heretic? Last time I checked, Cajetan's opinion has not been condemned as heretical. If you put the name in there because, while you have doubts, you feel you dont' have the authority to make that determination? If you put the name in there because for one reason or another (which although mistaken is quite sincere and arrived at in good faith) you've concluded that the man is Pope, even if a very bad or even heretical one, who will be judged later by competent authority? If you're a sedeprivationist and put the name in there because he's at least materially the Pope (dovetailing with the Cajetan opinion), are you a heretic and is that Mass sacrilegous and is it forbidden for the faithful to attend that Mass? Answer to all of these is a clear no.
Okay, this entire reply is a defense of the una cuм position. Once again, I appreciate your thoughts on it, because it may get me more frequent Sacraments. Unfortunately, in my area, there is only one option - a monthly Ukrainian mission, which sometimes falls on my SSPV days. I cannot bring myself to go to an SSPX Mass, for the reasons stated above. But I might not ultimately categorically reject una cuм, if I can find a true essential difference from the SSPX. When I rejected the SSPX, I thought I had no other options, so my mind rested there. But if I can attend an Eastern Rite Liturgy in good conscience, I will! So, thank you!
-
I think the difference is that a priest saying mass in a hotel room, airport, town hall, etc. is going to be bringing his own consecrated altar stone, which as far as I know is required for a licit mass (if not using a consecrated set altar). Any problems with a location that has been used for sinful purposes (e.g. Hotel room) can probably be solved with a blessing or simple exorcism, and that is most likely what happens in those situations. But I'm not even sure if that is absolutely necessary as long there is a consecrated altar..I think the greater concern is the altar as that is where the Holy Sacrifice is celebrated
That would be unfortunate if the SSPX used NO churches without reconsecrating the altar. I do believe I have seen some criticism of the sspx using churches with diocesan permission in some states, but it may have been directed more towards them being on friendly terms with the NO than the altar issue
Interesting .... so .... does the Byzantine Rite consecrate on an altar stone?
-
Interesting .... so .... does the Byzantine Rite consecrate on an altar stone?
Apparently they use a consecrated cloth containing relics called an antimension, which is required to be on the altar when celebrating the liturgy, and itself can be used as a portable altar when there is no altar. So that brings up a very interesting question..what are the implications of using the antimension, which suffices as a portable altar, on top of a desecrated altar? I don't know :laugh1:
-
The problem of the faithful is the incessant cacophony of confusing and contradictory decretals, condemnations, withholdings of Sacraments, threats, ostracizations, positions, deceits, lies, misleadings, etc, at the hands of the warring, territorial, divisive, self-serving trad clergy.
They prey on us like carrion birds!!!
I find it’s more the lay followers of self-serving trad clergy who are the problem. They gossip to the clergy in hopes of gaining his favor. Most, but not all of these tend to be women. These groupies of trad clergy are a clique of bullies who drive away those who don’t meet their approval.
-
I think the difference is that a priest saying mass in a hotel room, airport, town hall, etc. is going to be bringing his own consecrated altar stone, which as far as I know is required for a licit mass (if not using a consecrated set altar). Any problems with a location that has been used for sinful purposes (e.g. Hotel room) can probably be solved with a blessing or simple exorcism, and that is most likely what happens in those situations. But I'm not even sure if that is absolutely necessary as long there is a consecrated altar..I think the greater concern is the altar as that is where the Holy Sacrifice is celebrated
That would be unfortunate if the SSPX used NO churches without reconsecrating the altar. I do believe I have seen some criticism of the sspx using churches with diocesan permission in some states, but it may have been directed more towards them being on friendly terms with the NO than the altar issue
Well, it's technically illicit to offer Mass in hotel rooms, town halls, etc. without explicit permission of an Ordinary as well, and the requirement to have an altar stone is in that same category, so I don't believe it would remedy the situation per se. I somehow feel that the state of emergency in the Church permitting use of hotel conference rooms, etc. ... has probably been stretched a little too far where it's considered almost an ordinary modus operandi rather than being an irregularity that should be an exception only permitted rarely by the Ordinary, perhaps almost approximating the NO attitude of having "Masses" anywhere, like the one guy in Italy who said Mass waist-deep in water on a flotation device on a beach with everyone mostly undressed. Not quite there, but it appears to have moved in that direction just a little bit.
-
I find it’s more the lay followers of self-serving trad clergy who are the problem. They gossip to the clergy in hopes of gaining his favor. Most, but not all of these tend to be women. These groupies of trad clergy are a clique of bullies who drive away those who don’t meet their approval.
I have seen this happen innumerable times. It's a disgusting thing to behold. But, I've always laid the blame for it on the clergy. They promote this atmosphere, and use such women for their own ends.
-
The problem of the faithful is the incessant cacophony of confusing and contradictory decretals, condemnations, withholdings of Sacraments, threats, ostracizations, positions, deceits, lies, misleadings, etc, at the hands of the warring, territorial, divisive, self-serving trad clergy.
They prey on us like carrion birds!!!
Indeed, and I've come to tune out all this noise. Among the Trad clergy, there are perhaps one or two dogmatic issues that might warrant some kind of principled division, and even those are very much mitigated by the confusion of these days ... but the other conclusions are always several logical steps removed from Catholic doctrine, and yet they assume that because one of their operating premises is de fide their conclusion is also, since their logic is undoubtedly impeccable. That's simply not true. During this day and age, if a priest PROFESSES the Catholic faith and does not adhere to some OBVIOUS manifest heresy that all agree is heresy ... I hold that it's licit for the faithful to assist at their Masses and receive the Sacraments. So, for instance, if there were some priest out there calling himself Traditional Catholic, but had decided that Our Lady is God or said that the Pope is just like any other bishop, etc. ... yeah, that's obvious heresy. But to put various disputed questions, like whether Bergoglio is pope, into that same category? If those priests are in error, it's between them and God. NEVER has the Church required the faithful to be theologians in order to evaluate the validity of their theological arguments and their various positions.
I said principled divisions, because I can see some things requiring a practical division, e.g. if one group admits NO priests who are not conditionally consecrated or who they consider to otherwise have doubtful Orders, or where one group offers pre-1955 Holy Week, the other post- ... where just practically it can't work. But they cross the line when they impose these opinions or positions on the faithful by threat of withholding Sacraments. If, for instance, I felt that +Thuc line Holy Orders were doubtful, I might opine along those lines and perhaps warn the faithful about it ... but if they disagree you withhold the Sacraments from them? Seriously? On whose authority are you attempting to bind consciences under pain of effective excommunication (refusal of Sacraments, which is basically an excommunication).
-
Apparently they use a consecrated cloth containing relics called an antimension, which is required to be on the altar when celebrating the liturgy, and itself can be used as a portable altar when there is no altar. So that brings up a very interesting question..what are the implications of using the antimension, which suffices as a portable altar, on top of a desecrated altar? I don't know :laugh1:
I don't know either! But thanks for the info!
-
Yes. His wife's name is Hilyna, I think that's how you spell it.
Halyna, the Ukrainian form of the Polish name Galina. Ukrainian (and Slovakian) often uses an H where a Polish-speaker would expect to see a G (pirohi, Olha, et cetera).
I don't know Father Charron, but when I saw "Hilyna", I thought that didn't look quite right, so I looked it up.
-
Indeed, and I've come to tune out all this noise. Among the Trad clergy, there are perhaps one or two dogmatic issues that might warrant some kind of principled division, and even those are very much mitigated by the confusion of these days ... but the other conclusions are always several logical steps removed from Catholic doctrine, and yet they assume that because one of their operating premises is de fide their conclusion is also, since their logic is undoubtedly impeccable. That's simply not true. During this day and age, if a priest PROFESSES the Catholic faith and does not adhere to some OBVIOUS manifest heresy that all agree is heresy ... I hold that it's licit for the faithful to assist at their Masses and receive the Sacraments. If those priests are in error, it's between them and God. NEVER has the Church required the faithful to be theologians in order to evaluate the validity of their theological arguments and their various positions.
I said principled divisions, because I can see some things requiring a practical division, e.g. if one group admits NO priests who are not conditionally consecrated or who they consider to otherwise have doubtful Orders, or where one group offers pre-1955 Holy Week, the other post- ... where just practically it can't work. But they cross the line when they impose these opinions or positions on the faithful by threat of withholding Sacraments. If, for instance, I felt that +Thuc line Holy Orders were doubtful, I might opine along those lines and perhaps warn the faithful about it ... but if they disagree you withhold the Sacraments from them? Seriously? On whose authority are you attempting to bind consciences under pain of effective excommunication (refusal of Sacraments, which is basically an excommunication).
Agreed! I only wish I would have known to tune out the noise before I fell prey to all of this in the beginning of my conversion. I've been mislead so many times it's not funny.
-
Halyna, the Ukrainian form of the Polish name Galina. Ukrainian (and Slovakian) often uses an H where a Polish-speaker would expect to see a G (pirohi, Olha, et cetera).
I don't know Father Charron, but when I saw "Hilyna", I thought that didn't look quite right, so I looked it up.
Wonderful! I was wondering if it was a version of Helena.
-
I don't know either! But thanks for the info!
Right. You don't know. I don't know. Nobody really knows since we have a vacuum of authority to decide such questions that would normally be sent to the Holy Office. I doubt that Tucho's going to have a Catholic answer, and of course he assumes that the NOM is no sacrilege.
Given this "I don't know" situations, any reasonable need for the Sacraments justifies assisting at such Masses. If they did have Mass on a NO altar that's desecrated, they in fact do so not really THINKING it's desecrated, so there's no intention to desecrate, and since it's really a matter of my opinion. Given how I read Canon Law, an Ordinary could for legitimate reason dispense from some of these canonical requirements, so given the state of emergency and the confusion ... I'd say it's licit to assist even if you're not sure, along the lines of St. Alphonsus' probabilism (or semi-probabilism) approach the moral theology, where you don't have to be completely paralyzed due to uncertainty.
-
Well, it's technically illicit to offer Mass in hotel rooms, town halls, etc. without explicit permission of an Ordinary as well, and the requirement to have an altar stone is in that same category, so I don't believe it would remedy the situation per se. I somehow feel that the state of emergency in the Church permitting use of hotel conference rooms, etc. ... has probably been stretched a little too far where it's considered almost an ordinary modus operandi rather than being an irregularity that should be an exception only permitted rarely by the Ordinary, perhaps almost approximating the NO attitude of having "Masses" anywhere, like the one guy in Italy who said Mass waist-deep in water on a flotation device on a beach with everyone mostly undressed. Not quite there, but it appears to have moved in that direction just a little bit.
I figured the laws about the location are more disciplinary, while the requirement for a consecrated altar is more of a necessity to preserve the sanctity of the Sacrifice of the Mass itself. Those probably aren't the most proper terms, but you get what I'm saying :laugh1:
In my opinion the garage or hotel masses display the reality of the crisis in the Church much more clearly than certain trad groups like the sspx building massive chapels and calling them churches, with parishes, calling priests pastors. I think that can cause the laity to become lukewarm, to assume that things are pretty normal and that we just have some not-great popes..rather than that we are living through the great apostasy
-
Right. You don't know. I don't know. Nobody really knows since we have a vacuum of authority to decide such questions that would normally be sent to the Holy Office. I doubt that Tucho's going to have a Catholic answer, and of course he assumes that the NOM is no sacrilege.
Given this "I don't know" situations, any reasonable need for the Sacraments justifies assisting at such Masses. If they did have Mass on a NO altar that's desecrated, they in fact do so not really THINKING it's desecrated, so there's no intention to desecrate, and since it's really a matter of my opinion. Given how I read Canon Law, an Ordinary could for legitimate reason dispense from some of these canonical requirements, so given the state of emergency and the confusion ... I'd say it's licit to assist even if you're not sure, along the lines of St. Alphonsus' probabilism (or semi-probabilism) approach the moral theology, where you don't have to be completely paralyzed due to uncertainty.
Good points that I did not consider. Do you think this applies to SSPX priests saying mass in NO churches as well?
-
I figured the laws about the location are more disciplinary, while the requirement for a consecrated altar is more of a necessity to preserve the sanctity of the Sacrifice of the Mass itself. Those probably aren't the most proper terms, but you get what I'm saying :laugh1:
In my opinion the garage or hotel masses display the reality of the crisis in the Church much more clearly than certain trad groups like the sspx building massive chapels and calling them churches, with parishes, calling priests pastors. I think that can cause the laity to become lukewarm, to assume that things are pretty normal and that we just have some not-great popes..rather than that we are living through the great apostasy
So, both do pertain to the "sanctity" and dignity of the Holy Sacrifice. Generally speaking, the use of an altar stone was seen as somehow mitigating the surrounding environment, but it did not completely offset it, or you could then put an altar stone anywhere, including in the middle of a brothel, right? In fact, you'd probably be committing a second sin by profaning the altar stone by putting it in such a setting. But the principle behind both considerations is the same, that sanctity or dignity of the Mass. And you couldn't just say Mass anywhere in normal times as if the Altar Stone took care of the problem entirely, but required the Ordinary's permission to do so. In other words, you required the permission of the Ordinary even to use an Altar Stone in a certain unbecoming setting ... for various pastoral reasons. But the same dispensation could be granted even to not having an Altar Stone, again, for the good of souls, such as where you might secretly have Mass in some cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ on a table with obviously no altar stone available. In other words, the rule is that it should be in a sacred space consecrated for the Mass ... but if there's some urgent pastoral necessity, elsewhere, and then if it's elsewhere then the priest should use an altar stone, if possible, but that too can be dispensed with for some urgent pastoral necessity. It's not like one is an absolute requirement the other not. Both are already exceptions to the rule.
Maybe a good analogy is this. Let's say a priest needs to offer Mass (for souls) but doesn't have vestments. Well, the rule might then be ... if the priest has to say Mass without vestments, he should take care to wear a suit (vs. some slovenly outfit like jeans and T-shirt) ... but then if that's not possible, for urgent need, he can offer Mass with jeans and T-shirt (it's all he has, it's in time of persecution, souls need the Mass and Sacraments, etc.). That's the analogy here.
In terms of "hotel rooms", there's a distinction between a rented hall, for instance, and a priest's own hotel room, IMO, where the the former addresses a pastoral need, whereas the latter might be one of convenience.
-
Good points that I did not consider. Do you think this applies to SSPX priests saying mass in NO churches as well?
I think so. There's just so much confusion. It's not like the SSPX priest is going into the NO Church thinking he's profaning the Mass, as if he were, say, entering a ѕуηαgσgυє or mosque. Some churches were even consecrated by valid bishops before Vatican II, but even the ones that weren't they still professed Cathoicism (vs. those dedicated to professed non-Catholic religions). So, another thing to consider is that if the church is suitable for a Tridentine Mass, it likely still has the old high altar there, which likely was not use for the NOM (vs. the Luther table in front of it) ... distancing the NO altar a bit from the true one. In any case, while I personally consider the NOM objectively sacrilegous, not everyone shares that view, thinking it's more defective, deficient, lacking, ambiguous, or mostly bad because of the various implementations of it. While I don't share that view, I also realize that it's only my own opinion. I would not go to such a Mass if I had any viable alternaties, but if it's all I had to fulfill my Sunday obligation and receive Holy Communion, I would go ... due to the objective uncertainty. I liken it to a question of moral theology where priests might have different opinions. One priest might say something is OK, whereas another might say it's not. So what do you do as a member of the lay faithful? Well, moralists generally hold that you'd be permitted to go with either opinion provided that the Church hasn't rule on the dispute against one of the priests's opinons.
It's generally my opinion that there would have to be a very high degree of certainty about some matter that all Traditional Catholics agree upon before the lay faithful would be required in conscience to refrain from assisting at Holy Mass.
-
I think so. There's just so much confusion. It's not like the SSPX priest is going into the NO Church thinking he's profaning the Mass, as if he were, say, entering a ѕуηαgσgυє or mosque. Some churches were even consecrated by valid bishops before Vatican II, but even the ones that weren't they still professed Cathoicism (vs. those dedicated to professed non-Catholic religions). So, another thing to consider is that if the church is suitable for a Tridentine Mass, it likely still has the old high altar there, which likely was not use for the NOM (vs. the Luther table in front of it) ... distancing the NO altar a bit from the true one. In any case, while I personally consider the NOM objectively sacrilegous, not everyone shares that view, thinking it's more defective, deficient, lacking, ambiguous, or mostly bad because of the various implementations of it. While I don't share that view, I also realize that it's only my own opinion. I would not go to such a Mass if I had any viable alternaties, but if it's all I had to fulfill my Sunday obligation and receive Holy Communion, I would go ... due to the objective uncertainty. I liken it to a question of moral theology where priests might have different opinions. One priest might say something is OK, whereas another might say it's not. So what do you do as a member of the lay faithful? Well, moralists generally hold that you'd be permitted to go with either opinion provided that the Church hasn't rule on the dispute against one of the priests's opinons.
It's generally my opinion that there would have to be a very high degree of certainty about some matter that all Traditional Catholics agree upon before the lay faithful would be required in conscience to refrain from assisting at Holy Mass.
Thanks for the explanations, on both counts. That makes a lot of sense. From a different angle, another reason the SSPX using NO churches bothers me is that it gives the NO bishops a semblance of holding lawful authority in the Catholic Church, and how they are charitable, merciful in deigning to allow a "canonically irregular" group to celebrate the true Mass in their churches. Now obviously a Catholic bishop does have the right to do that, and I guess the sspx has always held those bishops to still have authority..but it just another one of those things that I think can cause trad faithful to become complacent, and believe the situation isn't as bad as it really is
-
Thanks for the explanations, on both counts. That makes a lot of sense. From a different angle, another reason the SSPX using NO churches bothers me is that it gives the NO bishops a semblance of holding lawful authority in the Catholic Church, and how they are charitable, merciful in deigning to allow a "canonically irregular" group to celebrate the true Mass in their churches. Now obviously a Catholic bishop does have the right to do that, and I guess the sspx has always held those bishops to still have authority..but it just another one of those things that I think can cause trad faithful to become complacent, and believe the situation isn't as bad as it really is
I may have missed it, but have you mentioned the issue of "consecrated" hosts? Is there a possibility that the SSPX distributes hosts consecrated by the NO?
-
I may have missed it, but have you mentioned the issue of "consecrated" hosts? Is there a possibility that the SSPX distributes hosts consecrated by the NO?
I've never heard a case of that ... though I have heard of hosts consecrated by priests who had not been conditionally ordained. So it's quite possible in SSPX to show up at a chapel and find an SSPX-ordained priest there for Mass, but then go to Holy Communion without realizing that the Blessed Sacrament in the coborium within the tabernacle from which he distributes Holy Communion was in fact consecrated the previous week by a priest who had come in that weekend but had not been conditionally ordained after coming over from NO.
-
Thanks for the explanations, on both counts. That makes a lot of sense. From a different angle, another reason the SSPX using NO churches bothers me is that it gives the NO bishops a semblance of holding lawful authority in the Catholic Church, and how they are charitable, merciful in deigning to allow a "canonically irregular" group to celebrate the true Mass in their churches. Now obviously a Catholic bishop does have the right to do that, and I guess the sspx has always held those bishops to still have authority..but it just another one of those things that I think can cause trad faithful to become complacent, and believe the situation isn't as bad as it really is
Well, that's what they believe, though, that the NO bishops do have authority. So, for instance, St. Vincent Ferrer thought that one of the Antipopes was the actual pope and (presumably) put his name into the Canon and then the name of the bishops who was under that false pope, etc. He did so because he thought they had authority, but was wrong. That too I put in the same category, that of material error but with the correct formal intention.
-
But the same dispensation could be granted even to not having an Altar Stone, again, for the good of souls, such as where you might secretly have Mass in some cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ on a table with obviously no altar stone available. In other words, the rule is that it should be in a sacred space consecrated for the Mass ... but if there's some urgent pastoral necessity, elsewhere, and then if it's elsewhere then the priest should use an altar stone, if possible, but that too can be dispensed with for some urgent pastoral necessity. It's not like one is an absolute requirement the other not. Both are already exceptions to the rule.
I have heard of priests (St Maximilian Kolbe, and I want to say, Orthodox priests as well) offering Mass in prison camps using their hand as an "altar".
Incidentally, are there any traditionalist Catholics who deny that Kolbe's martyrdom story, and the circuмstances surrounding it (being held at Auschwitz), happened as the mainstream accounts say it did?
-
Incidentally, are there any traditionalist Catholics who deny that Kolbe's martyrdom story, and the circuмstances surrounding it (being held at Auschwitz), happened as the mainstream accounts say it did?
I am honestly unsure what to think about Maximillian Kolbe.
-
I've never heard a case of that ... though I have heard of hosts consecrated by priests who had not been conditionally ordained. So it's quite possible in SSPX to show up at a chapel and find an SSPX-ordained priest there for Mass, but then go to Holy Communion without realizing that the Blessed Sacrament in the coborium within the tabernacle from which he distributes Holy Communion was in fact consecrated the previous week by a priest who had come in that weekend but had not been conditionally ordained after coming over from NO.
It happens all the time. There is a SSPX chapel that I have visited in the past where five priests live, and one of them is a non conditionally ordained Novus Ordo priest. There are four masses on Sunday. Result: no communion for me, since it is impossible to know which are the hosts that he (or did not) consecrate. I don't visit this place anymore, sadly.
-
Fr. Chazal, who's position is a slight variation on sedeprivationism, refers to the [material] pope as a "visible sign" of unity, i.e. just saying, "I'm a Catholic and profess submission to the pope."
Where can I read more about Fr. Chazal's position on the una cuм issue, specially about this designation of the NO popes as "visible signs" of unity?