Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Ambrose on May 03, 2014, 12:29:53 AM
-
The other thread about the awful manner in which Fr. Pinaud was treated makes me wonder if he has given any thought to working with or joining CMRI.
CMRI currently operates almost 60 chapels and mass locations in the United States alone, and is very active internationally, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, etc.
The CMRI could really use good priests to keep meeting the needs of so many Catholics who keep calling them to expand into their areas but they are already spread thin.
The CMRI does not require priests who work with them to join their order, that decision is totally for the individual priest to make. Many CMRI priests are secular priests who are priests affiliated with CMRI but not religious. They work with CMRI, live in their rectories, receive their assignments from the leadership, but ate free to leave, as they are not religious. Also, some former SSPX priests also assist CMRI, but on an as needed basis.
If this sounds like a good option for Fr. Pinaud, Bp. Pivarunas is a very approachable and good leader, and the CMRI is thriving and growing exponentially under his leadership. They operate under a solid pre-Vatican II rule, and their priests are all hard working zealous priests who are actively working all over the place to save souls.
The CMRI would offer any good priest an assignment to do God's work, and I strongly recommend him to at least think about this, and if possible visit St. Michael's in Washington, their flagship church, and speak you the priests, or visit Bp. Pivarunas in Omaha, NE and speak with him directly ask questions and learn more about them.
(No CMRI member spoke to me about this, it is just my own thoughts and opinion, for what it's worth.)
-
Why would you ever think Father would want to join a Sedevacantist group?
-
Why would you ever think Father would want to join a Sedevacantist group?
Father Pinaud announced publicly in Quebec his intention of taking over the work of Fr Raffalli who is a sedevacantist.
-
Why would you ever think Father would want to join a Sedevacantist group?
Perhaps the R&R position no longer makes sense to him?
-
I think they should at least get in touch and exchange notes. I know of several places in Canada where CMRI priests travel to do mass just for one family, when they can. It is hard to believe but some people are not aware of all the masses out there.
-
The other thread about the awful manner in which Fr. Pinaud was treated makes me wonder if he has given any thought to working with or joining CMRI.
CMRI currently operates almost 60 chapels and mass locations in the United States alone, and is very active internationally, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, etc.
The CMRI could really use good priests to keep meeting the needs of so many Catholics who keep calling them to expand into their areas but they are already spread thin.
The CMRI does not require priests who work with them to join their order, that decision is totally for the individual priest to make. Many CMRI priests are secular priests who are priests affiliated with CMRI but not religious. They work with CMRI, live in their rectories, receive their assignments from the leadership, but ate free to leave, as they are not religious. Also, some former SSPX priests also assist CMRI, but on an as needed basis.
If this sounds like a good option for Fr. Pinaud, Bp. Pivarunas is a very approachable and good leader, and the CMRI is thriving and growing exponentially under his leadership. They operate under a solid pre-Vatican II rule, and their priests are all hard working zealous priests who are actively working all over the place to save souls.
The CMRI would offer any good priest an assignment to do God's work, and I strongly recommend him to at least think about this, and if possible visit St. Michael's in Washington, their flagship church, and speak you the priests, or visit Bp. Pivarunas in Omaha, NE and speak with him directly ask questions and learn more about them.
(No CMRI member spoke to me about this, it is just my own thoughts and opinion, for what it's worth.)
I attend an SSPX chapel now out of necessity.
When traveling to Spokane/Post Falls the decision is very simple... it is St. Michael's or Mary Immaculate Queen.
If I were Fr. Pinaud there would be no question where I would hang my Biretta.
-
Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.
The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...
-
Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.
The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...
SSPX IS insinuating that ex-SSPX and other non-indult/FSSP trads are by default sedevacantist BECAUSE they DO NOT ATTEND any of the abovementioned.
They keep repeating that mantra just like the NO repeated the mantra "schismatic" of anyone attending SSPX.
Demonize is the right word, as that is the only way they can make themselves appear angelic.
-
The other thread about the awful manner in which Fr. Pinaud was treated makes me wonder if he has given any thought to working with or joining CMRI.
CMRI currently operates almost 60 chapels and mass locations in the United States alone, and is very active internationally, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, etc.
The CMRI could really use good priests to keep meeting the needs of so many Catholics who keep calling them to expand into their areas but they are already spread thin.
The CMRI does not require priests who work with them to join their order, that decision is totally for the individual priest to make. Many CMRI priests are secular priests who are priests affiliated with CMRI but not religious. They work with CMRI, live in their rectories, receive their assignments from the leadership, but ate free to leave, as they are not religious. Also, some former SSPX priests also assist CMRI, but on an as needed basis.
If this sounds like a good option for Fr. Pinaud, Bp. Pivarunas is a very approachable and good leader, and the CMRI is thriving and growing exponentially under his leadership. They operate under a solid pre-Vatican II rule, and their priests are all hard working zealous priests who are actively working all over the place to save souls.
The CMRI would offer any good priest an assignment to do God's work, and I strongly recommend him to at least think about this, and if possible visit St. Michael's in Washington, their flagship church, and speak you the priests, or visit Bp. Pivarunas in Omaha, NE and speak with him directly ask questions and learn more about them.
(No CMRI member spoke to me about this, it is just my own thoughts and opinion, for what it's worth.)
I attend an SSPX chapel now out of necessity.
When traveling to Spokane/Post Falls the decision is very simple... it is St. Michael's or Mary Immaculate Queen.
If I were Fr. Pinaud there would be no question where I would hang my Biretta.
I agree, and in my opinion, CMRI is going to be the standard bearer holding the ground for Catholics unti a Pope comes again. The SSPX has always stood their ground against the Conciliar church, but as that resolve weakens, God will use others. CMRI is growing all over the place, and they are training and ordaining many young men for the priesthood.
If I were to advise any young man right now who may have a vocation, I would urge him to go to the CMRI minor seminary in Idaho if he were a teenager, and to go to the major seminary in Omaha if he was older than 18. The CMRI even retrained and conditionally ordained a Novus Ordo priest recently who is residing at St. Michaels in Washington.
-
Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.
The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...
Good post, but in our current climate, being labelled as a sedevacantist is more often a compliment than a slur against someone. The winds are changing, the Conciliar church and it's false "popes" are coming crashing down, and more and more Catholics are finally seeing the whole picture.
The false arguments against the position of "sedevacante" have been debunked and the truth is now shining more clearly. So long as Francis the Pretender claims the Papacy, this trend will only continue. He has shown Catholics the truth with his words and deeds and has done more to make this truth known more than all of us "sedevacatists" combined. Life is full of ironies.
-
Good post, but in our current climate, being labelled as a sedevacantist is more often a compliment than a slur against someone. The winds are changing, the Conciliar church and it's false "popes" are coming crashing down, and more and more Catholics are finally seeing the whole picture.
The false arguments against the position of "sedevacante" have been debunked and the truth is now shining more clearly. So long as Francis the Pretender claims the Papacy, this trend will only continue. He has shown Catholics the truth with his words and deeds and has done more to make this truth known more than all of us "sedevacatists" combined. Life is full of ironies.
I agree with you Ambrose, but I was writing that for the 'Resistance' people of Quebec that are being mislead by a small minority. For the Lefebvrists, being label a 'sedevacantist' is worst than being Novus Ordo or SSP. They try to categorize Fathers Pinaud and Rioult as sedevacantists without knowing that one SSPX priest in Quebec for the last 10 years is also 'non una cuм'!
I'm just stating the facts right. Fathers Pinaud and Rioult are not sedevacantists. They don't name Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass and Father Pinaud didn't name him in the Good Friday second Oremus for the Pope. He red the Oremus, but didn't say 'Franciscus'.
-
I'm just stating the facts right. Fathers Pinaud and Rioult are not sedevacantists. They don't name Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass and Father Pinaud didn't name him in the Good Friday second Oremus for the Pope. He red the Oremus, but didn't say 'Franciscus'.
Last sentence of Eleison Comments #353:
"True priests should neither flirt with Rome today, Nor cut the Pope out of their Mass, I say."
-
Last sentence of Eleison Comments #353:
"True priests should neither flirt with Rome today, Nor cut the Pope out of their Mass, I say."
You forgot the "I say": an opinion of Bishop Williamson only his opinion.
-
Good post, but in our current climate, being labelled as a sedevacantist is more often a compliment than a slur against someone. The winds are changing, the Conciliar church and it's false "popes" are coming crashing down, and more and more Catholics are finally seeing the whole picture.
The false arguments against the position of "sedevacante" have been debunked and the truth is now shining more clearly. So long as Francis the Pretender claims the Papacy, this trend will only continue. He has shown Catholics the truth with his words and deeds and has done more to make this truth known more than all of us "sedevacatists" combined. Life is full of ironies.
I agree with you Ambrose, but I was writing that for the 'Resistance' people of Quebec that are being mislead by a small minority. For the Lefebvrists, being label a 'sedevacantist' is worst than being Novus Ordo or SSP. They try to categorize Fathers Pinaud and Rioult as sedevacantists without knowing that one SSPX priest in Quebec for the last 10 years is also 'non una cuм'!
I'm just stating the facts right. Fathers Pinaud and Rioult are not sedevacantists. They don't name Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass and Father Pinaud didn't name him in the Good Friday second Oremus for the Pope. He red the Oremus, but didn't say 'Franciscus'.
Good post, but if I may add, that you should refer to them as neo-Lefebvrists. Archbishop Lefebvre was not an anti-sedevacantist, and was clearly moving towards declaring the seat vacant himself by 1986. The fact that he did not, does not mean that he swayed the other way against realizing that John Paul II was not a Pope.
The post Lefebvre SSPX is living in historical revisionism. Archbishop Lefebvre illustrated his thinking on the matter in very clear terms and explained Catholic teaching on the matter with crispness and clarity. If you read the link below, you may realize that there is absolutely no difference between Archbishop Lefebvre's principles and that of St. Robert Bellarmine.
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Archbishop-Lefebvre-1986-Address-to-Seminarians
-
Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.
The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...
The 'non una cuм' position is just the new "branding" name of sedevacantism...
-
Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.
The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...
The 'non una cuм' position is just the new "branding" name of sedevacantism...
The non una cuм thing seems to be primarily an St Gertrude the Great/Fr Cekada thing. That is their position, but it isn't shared by all sedevacantists, for example, CMRI and their affiliated priests. I don't think either of those groups are going to be pronouncing 'anathemas' against each other.
-
Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.
The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...
The 'non una cuм' position is just the new "branding" name of sedevacantism...
The non una cuм thing seems to be primarily an St Gertrude the Great/Fr Cekada thing. That is their position, but it isn't shared by all sedevacantists, for example, CMRI and their affiliated priests. I don't think either of those groups are going to be pronouncing 'anathemas' against each other.
This seems to be a new "una cuм" controversy, different than the one made famous by SGG. If I an reading this right, they seem to be saying that the priest rejects the name of Francis in the Mass, while recognizing him as Pope simultaneously.
This is new to me, and very strange.
-
I'm just stating the facts right. Fathers Pinaud and Rioult are not sedevacantists. They don't name Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass and Father Pinaud didn't name him in the Good Friday second Oremus for the Pope. He red the Oremus, but didn't say 'Franciscus'.
Last sentence of Eleison Comments #353:
"True priests should neither flirt with Rome today, Nor cut the Pope out of their Mass, I say."
[/quote
While one can (and should) love and respect, promote and support Bishop Williamson and Father Pfeiffer for their very courageous and honorable stand against the errors of Fellay and Co., one is not obliged too accept their speculative opinions as doctrine. Our Lord said that "even if an angel of heaven presches something different from my teaching-- let him(that angel from heaven) be anathema!! Our faith teaches that anathema is total rejection-- excommunication (like what the masons and Jєωs did to the Archbishop)
Is Brogoglio teaching the same doctrine that Jesus Christ taught-- yes or no ? Would Christ have kissed the Koran, authored by the slanderers of His Holy Name? Pushed by haters of His Blessed Mother? If Jesus Christ COULD POSSIBLY EVER had said that Jєωs, communists, atheists, and infidels, as long as they were "good," will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven as communists, atheists, Jєωs and infidels; then Brogoglio is your man; then the stupidities he and Ratzinger spout are not heresies; then I stand corrected; and the good Lord has not allowed the chair of Peter to remain unoccupied.
But if the garbage these guys are teaching is a different gospel from that of Our Blessed Lord-- then they are, ipso facto, by the fact of the matter, anathema; should be recognized as such, and shunned as excommunicates.
And make absolutely no mistake about it. As Fellay and the Vaticanistas teach in Lumen Gentium 25, we are to know the mind and heart of the man from "his every day, daily, speech and language", from his statements and writings!! Lumen Gentium demands that (and Fellay promises to obey) all the statements, writings, and musings of "The Vicar of Christ," whether formal or informal in their medium and their nature.
So, one is not obliged to accept an erroneous opinion regarding Francis, even if one otherwise may respect the opinion- holder. Without going into areas far afield of this post, suffice it to say mistakes have been made aplenty by many in the past. Almost everybody was snowed by Fellay into supporting the year 2000 phony dog and pony show in Rome; Urutagoity was ordained and let loose in Winona, even though the SSPX had been warned by the Rector of the Argentinian SSPX Seminary (Bp Morello) of his problems being around males;most priests were fooled by Fellay into ditching the original Litkurgical books and forcing the 1962 Missals on the faithful-- for a phony show of unity;most priests were conned into supporting the big outreach program " Priest where is the Mass; Mass, where is thy priest?", which opened the floodgates for acceptance of un ordained novus ordo Pres-by-ters-- without ever realizing that they were, in reality, degrading the worth and value of their very own seminary training and true ordinations as priests ordained to offer the eternal sacrifice.
-
What I want to make clear, after meeting Father Pinaud several times in his stay in Quebec and talking with him, is that Father didn't study in depth the theological, canonical and historical aspects of the problem. In the SSPX, this is a taboo question and someone that want to study it has to do it discretely, specially since the year 2000. So to say that Father Pinaud is a sedevacantist right now is dishonest.
-
What I want to make clear, after meeting Father Pinaud several times in his stay in Quebec and talking with him, is that Father didn't study in depth the theological, canonical and historical aspects of the problem. In the SSPX, this is a taboo question and someone that want to study it has to do it discretely, specially since the year 2000. So to say that Father Pinaud is a sedevacantist right now is dishonest.
He demonstrates his love for the truth by looking into this at all. If he keeps digging, he will find the truth. I wish him only the best, and will pray for him.
-
What I want to make clear, after meeting Father Pinaud several times in his stay in Quebec and talking with him, is that Father didn't study in depth the theological, canonical and historical aspects of the problem. In the SSPX, this is a taboo question and someone that want to study it has to do it discretely, specially since the year 2000. So to say that Father Pinaud is a sedevacantist right now is dishonest.
He demonstrates his love for the truth by looking into this at all. If he keeps digging, he will find the truth. I wish him only the best, and will pray for him.
It would seem truth is more important to him than room and board, this is reason to hope.
Remember the old adage... seek the truth and room and board will be given unto you.
-
Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.
The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...
The 'non una cuм' position is just the new "branding" name of sedevacantism...
The non una cuм thing seems to be primarily an St Gertrude the Great/Fr Cekada thing. That is their position, but it isn't shared by all sedevacantists, for example, CMRI and their affiliated priests. I don't think either of those groups are going to be pronouncing 'anathemas' against each other.
This seems to be a new "una cuм" controversy, different than the one made famous by SGG. If I an reading this right, they seem to be saying that the priest rejects the name of Francis in the Mass, while recognizing him as Pope simultaneously.
This is new to me, and very strange.
This is strange. How would this possibly work?
-
Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.
The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...
The 'non una cuм' position is just the new "branding" name of sedevacantism...
The non una cuм thing seems to be primarily an St Gertrude the Great/Fr Cekada thing. That is their position, but it isn't shared by all sedevacantists, for example, CMRI and their affiliated priests. I don't think either of those groups are going to be pronouncing 'anathemas' against each other.
This seems to be a new "una cuм" controversy, different than the one made famous by SGG. If I an reading this right, they seem to be saying that the priest rejects the name of Francis in the Mass, while recognizing him as Pope simultaneously.
This is new to me, and very strange.
This is strange. How would this possibly work?
It doesn't work!
If you believe the Apostate is the Pope you are obliged to put him in the Canon.
If you believe the Apostate is not the Pope... you may pray for him, but you must leave him out of the Canon!
-
How can we trust in priest that take such a pratical decision without meditating in its theological consequences? I would not trust him to give a little catechism to a 7 years old child. Are we facing a new "theological praxis" model?
-
Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.
The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...
The 'non una cuм' position is just the new "branding" name of sedevacantism...
The non una cuм thing seems to be primarily an St Gertrude the Great/Fr Cekada thing. That is their position, but it isn't shared by all sedevacantists, for example, CMRI and their affiliated priests. I don't think either of those groups are going to be pronouncing 'anathemas' against each other.
This seems to be a new "una cuм" controversy, different than the one made famous by SGG. If I an reading this right, they seem to be saying that the priest rejects the name of Francis in the Mass, while recognizing him as Pope simultaneously.
This is new to me, and very strange.
This is strange. How would this possibly work?
It doesn't work!
If you believe the Apostate is the Pope you are obliged to put him in the Canon.
If you believe the Apostate is not the Pope... you may pray for him, but you must leave him out of the Canon!
I know it doesn't make sense, but for some perhaps this is a way of easing in to the sedevacantist position.
When I look at those who have adopted sedebenedicplenism, like Paul Kramer, I often think how easy it will be for them to become full-fledged sedevacantists when Ratzinger dies.
It is like they are slowly admitting they were wrong or changing positions without as much negative attention.
-
Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.
The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...
The 'non una cuм' position is just the new "branding" name of sedevacantism...
The non una cuм thing seems to be primarily an St Gertrude the Great/Fr Cekada thing. That is their position, but it isn't shared by all sedevacantists, for example, CMRI and their affiliated priests. I don't think either of those groups are going to be pronouncing 'anathemas' against each other.
This seems to be a new "una cuм" controversy, different than the one made famous by SGG. If I an reading this right, they seem to be saying that the priest rejects the name of Francis in the Mass, while recognizing him as Pope simultaneously.
This is new to me, and very strange.
This is strange. How would this possibly work?
Please bear with me as this whole sedevacante issue is quite perplexing to me.
Maybe, for those who reject the name of Francis in the Mass do so because they are uncertain about their validity as pope yet stay away from declaring sedevacante because he still has the potential to be.
The validity is circuмspect because of declarations and actions that would nullify the position they hold based on previous declarations made by popes and councils.
-
Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.
The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...
The 'non una cuм' position is just the new "branding" name of sedevacantism...
The non una cuм thing seems to be primarily an St Gertrude the Great/Fr Cekada thing. That is their position, but it isn't shared by all sedevacantists, for example, CMRI and their affiliated priests. I don't think either of those groups are going to be pronouncing 'anathemas' against each other.
This seems to be a new "una cuм" controversy, different than the one made famous by SGG. If I an reading this right, they seem to be saying that the priest rejects the name of Francis in the Mass, while recognizing him as Pope simultaneously.
This is new to me, and very strange.
This is strange. How would this possibly work?
Please bear with me as this whole sedevacante issue is quite perplexing to me.
Maybe, for those who reject the name of Francis in the Mass do so because they are uncertain about their validity as pope yet stay away from declaring sedevacante because he still has the potential to be.
The validity is circuмspect because of declarations and actions that would nullify the position they hold based on previous declarations made by popes and councils.
The problem is this: a doubtful Pope is no Pope. Francis, prior to his election, engaged in public sins against the Faith, which demonstrated that he was not a Catholic. He allowed himself to be blessed by a Protestant minister and thus actively participated in non-Catholic prayer, and also actively participated in a Jєωιѕн ritual.
Both of these acts demonstrate that this man is not a Catholic, and by that was not eligible for the office of the Papacy. We do not have to get into the arguments about judging a Pope prior to the judgment of the Church, he was never Pope to begin with.
-
I think they should at least get in touch and exchange notes. I know of several places in Canada where CMRI priests travel to do mass just for one family, when they can. It is hard to believe but some people are not aware of all the masses out there.
Many people don't like the Traditio website, but nevertheless it runs the most comprehensive Traditional Mass Directory. For the greater good it maybe better for Traditio to separate the Directory from the website so that many more people will use it in both directions, that is to check for Mass locations and also to inform the Directory of new and presently unlisted venues.