Author Topic: Fr. Roy - St. Catharines Mass Announcement (Read 9686 times)

reconquest · « **Reply #15 on:** January 21, 2017, 02:38:50 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Yeah and later in the Canon, be sure to remember the "6 million".

sedevacantist3 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 21, 2017, 04:28:53 PM »

Quote from: Defender

Fr. Roy is a sedevacantist (i.e. not a true follower of Archbishop Lefebvre)

really, when did he make it public? I have argued with him in the past that he should take the sedevacanist position , it's good if this is true

SoldierofCtK · « **Reply #17 on:** January 21, 2017, 04:31:10 PM »

Defender,

Thank you for the quotes from the Archbishop; it's always good to "hear from him." The way Fr. Roy explained his reasoning for "non-una cuм" has nothing to do with the issue the Archbishop brings up in this talk. I am still learning, but the way I understand the quote of +ABL is he is again referring to "dogmatic" sedevacantists, such as the Dimond brothers or the +Sandborns, who see the SSPX/Resistance position as heretical because the clergy say una cuм [conciliar pope].

The "non-una cuм" position, as Fr. Roy explained it, is a prudential choice after recognizing enough of the evidence to be "suspect" of the (Conciliar) Pope's orthodoxy. Again, I personally disagree with the choice, but I am only a layman, so my opinion is worth less than nothing. Fr. Roy's position would have been tolerated in the SSPX of +ABL, even if it was not the overall position of the SSPX.

I would add, however, the "non-una cuм" position can lead to dogmatic sedevacantism the Archbishop found "ridiculous", but Fr. Roy is far from it. We must pray for all our clergy to keep from error, both conciliar and otherwise. +J.M.J.+

reconquest · « **Reply #18 on:** January 21, 2017, 04:55:13 PM »

I'm glad that Fr. Roy's visit seems to have been peaceful and edifying, SoldierofCtK.

Defender · « **Reply #19 on:** January 21, 2017, 10:51:47 PM »

Quote from: SoldierofCtK

I am still learning, but the way I understand the quote of +ABL is he is again referring to "dogmatic" sedevacantists

Well, if you're convinced of this, then there is nothing more to be said. The danger of being outside of a structure like the SSPX is that everyone is trying to figure it out on their own, and many are getting lost in the process. Good luck.

Invalid · « **Reply #20 on:** January 23, 2017, 09:54:08 PM »

SoldierofCtK said:
I am still learning, but the way I understand the quote of +ABL is he is again referring to "dogmatic" sedevacantists

Let your speech be Yes, Yes, or No, No. I have not read anything from Archbishop Lefebvre wherein he classifies sedevacantists as "dogmatic" or not. We might be able to dismiss the person questioning the actions of the Pope but when a Priest no longer does what the Church has always done at a public function of the Church then we become complicit in it, if indeed we know that he is not doing what the Church has always done.

We should not read into what the Archbishop has said and make his very clear speech into 50 shades of grey.

Incredulous · « **Reply #21 on:** January 23, 2017, 10:15:59 PM »

Funny how that the Fellay cult insists on being under Francis, the radical edge of the VII revolutionaries.
Labeling their critics sedes or schismatics is one of only defenses they have left, other than being secretive.

SoldierofCtK · « **Reply #22 on:** January 24, 2017, 01:23:39 PM »

I appreciate all the comments, but on advice from a spiritual advisor, I will refrain from posting on this subject. Be assured of my prayers for everyone here, as this crisis in the Church gets worse by the day. The consecration of Russia to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart cannot come fast enough! +J.M.J.+

Invalid · « **Reply #23 on:** January 24, 2017, 05:58:19 PM »

I was given spiritual direction once by a Priest that whenever questions are posed by a person who is searching for the truth you should answer the question if you can. If you are not sure, recommend a Holy Priest to answer the question.

Dear SoldierofCtK,
I can not understand why you have been decided not to post on this subject any more based on spiritual counsel.

It was getting very interesting.

SoldierofCtK · « **Reply #24 on:** January 24, 2017, 07:40:06 PM »

Invalid,

Basically, for the sake of unity within the Resistance (as much as God allows), I do not want to give out opinions, at least on an online forum, that may possibly cause further confusion. Again, I am a mere layman and will leave this discussion to priests and those who have more wisdom than I. Due to the "touchy" nature of Sedevacantism in general, I think it is perhaps better to just "watch and pray" for now. The expression "You don't know what you don't know." comes to mind...

I will still be reading this and other discussions, but it is also becoming a bit of a distraction from my prayer life to try and argue positions I possibly do not completely understand, both for and against Sedevacantism. God bless.

Benzel · « **Reply #25 on:** January 25, 2017, 04:12:16 PM »

Quote from: SoldierofCtK

Defender, you're missing the important distinction "non-dogmatic". If one is to believe Fr. Chazal, and I do, the Archbishop did tolerate the "non-una cuм" position, as long as it was not raised to the level of Dogma or caused division for division's sake.

Dear SoldieroCtK, where Fr. Chazal said it?

SoldierofCtK · « **Reply #26 on:** January 26, 2017, 02:37:32 PM »

Benzel,

I cannot remember the source, but if I recall correctly, it was either in a YouTube sermon or one of Fr.'s letters to the Faithful, concerning Fr. Kramer. The burden of proof is on me to 'back up' that claim, so until I can provide a source, I would no longer make this argument. God bless.

Benzel · « **Reply #27 on:** January 26, 2017, 03:46:56 PM »

Quote from: SoldierofCtK

Benzel,

I cannot remember the source, but if I recall correctly, it was either in a YouTube sermon or one of Fr.'s letters to the Faithful, concerning Fr. Kramer. The burden of proof is on me to 'back up' that claim, so until I can provide a source, I would no longer make this argument. God bless.

Thank you, dear SoldierofCtK.

Invalid · « **Reply #28 on:** February 09, 2017, 05:43:29 PM »

Invalid,

Basically, for the sake of unity within the Resistance (as much as God allows), I do not want to give out opinions, at least on an online forum, that may possibly cause further confusion. Again, I am a mere layman and will leave this discussion to priests and those who have more wisdom than I. Due to the "touchy" nature of Sedevacantism in general, I think it is perhaps better to just "watch and pray" for now. The expression "You don't know what you don't know." comes to mind...

I will still be reading this and other discussions, but it is also becoming a bit of a distraction from my prayer life to try and argue positions I possibly do not completely understand, both for and against Sedevacantism. God bless.
.........................
+J.M.J.+

Dear Soldierof CtK,
I was not asking for opinions in order to cause confusion. We the faithful have been given the gift or "pearl of great value", that we must fight to keep, especially in this Crisis in the Church. In many places around the world people who have or are accepting Sedevacantism as an acceptable position can lose their Faith because they separate themselves, eventually, if they stay on that path, from one of the four marks of Catholicism (The Church), which is unity.
Our Lord said His Church on earth will last until the end. This includes Its visibility. The Sedevacantist proposition states that there is no Pope, his seat is vacant. So, where is the visible Church? Many in the English speaking countries do not really understand this problem. I am English but I know enough French to know the word "voleur" in a conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre when he was speaking of the 9 Priests that he had consecrated and shortly after their consecration, left the Society, and in doing so proclaimed that they were sedevacantists. I have heard a conference of Fr. Chazal wherein he stated that these ideas can only lead to separations and eventually will collapse on themselves much like Protestantism.
We can not "watch and pray" we must decide and take appropriate actions. We are supposed to love our neighbors. How do we love them when we cannot take a position. We resist Bishop Fellay because he is going towards (or is already in) Rome but we don't deal with an issue that the Archbishop has already dealt with. The Archbishop told those 9 that they must accept that the Pope is the Pope and pray for him in the Canon of the Mass.

Invalid · « **Reply #29 on:** February 09, 2017, 06:04:25 PM »

Avatar

Reputation: 2726
(Likers: 100 / Critics: 25)
Posts: 5,052

Add Matto to your buddy list Send an email to Matto Send a personal messsage to Matto Ignore all posts by Matto Click to Like this post by Matto1 Click to Dislike this post by Matto0 Quote Delete this single post by Matto Go to the top of the page
http://sodalitium-pianum.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-prayer-una-cuм-for-pope-in-canon-of.html
He's against the non-una cuм priests.

P.S. I just clicked on this blogspot and it is not accessible. I was wondering if Father Roy had changed his position and was now for Priests that pray for the Pope, Pope Francis that is.