Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SoldierofCtK on January 20, 2017, 07:18:53 AM
-
It's a little last minute, but I was asked to help spread the word that Fr. Pierre Roy is coming to St. Catharines this evening and Saturday morning to offer Holy Mass.
We have Fr Roy coming this week, he will offer Mass on Friday evening (Jan 20) at 21 Walters Ct. at 6pm, the following day at 9am. Hope you can make it and please let anyone know that you think may be interested.
If interested, please bring finger foods.
-
Deo gratias!
(http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1606g.jpg)
-
Fr. Roy is a sedevacantist (i.e. not a true follower of Archbishop Lefebvre)
-
Fr. Roy is a sedevacantist (i.e. not a true follower of Archbishop Lefebvre)
When did the Archbishop become the rule of Faith for those outside of the cult?
-
Didn't the Archbishop tolerate 'non-dogmatic' sedevacantists within the SSPX? As far as I am aware, Fr. Roy falls under this category. Personally, I disagree with the 'non una cuм' position, but it is limited to just a 'theological opinion.'
-
Didn't the Archbishop tolerate 'non-dogmatic' sedevacantists within the SSPX? As far as I am aware, Fr. Roy falls under this category. Personally, I disagree with the 'non una cuм' position, but it is limited to just a 'theological opinion.'
I think +ABL had a cute saying for it:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Marcel_Lefebvre_1981b.jpg/250px-Marcel_Lefebvre_1981b.jpg)
"Je ne dirai pas que les Catholiques ne peuvent pas dire que le Pape n'est pas le Pape"
Translated into English:[/u] "I will not say that Catholics cannot say that the pope is not the pope"
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Fr. Roy is a sedevacantist (i.e. not a true follower of Archbishop Lefebvre)
(http://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/fellay-eyes-closed_med-2.jpeg)
And a schismatic my good Defender!
A priest who disobeyed my "Grace of State" and actually used his brain, to determine where I'm leading the order!
"Uh.. I mean... how I'm leading the order to holiness...you know what I mean."
-
Fr. Roy is a sedevacantist (i.e. not a true follower of Archbishop Lefebvre)
When did the Archbishop become the rule of Faith for those outside of the cult?
The Archbishop is “the rule of Faith” for the Resistance and he used to be “the rule of Faith” for the SSPX. Sedevacantists just hide inside these groups.
Why aren’t sedevacantists proud of their position and announce it everywhere? Why do they hide under the name of Archbishop Lefebvre? Why don’t they join the other sedevacantists (Sanborn, Dolan, etc)?
Sedevacantists are sneaky in their dealings with non-sedevacantists. Some sedevacantists now claim themselves to be “una cuм.” But they don’t put the name of the Pope in the Mass. They use the name “petro.” So they say “una cuм petro” during the Mass. Nice trick. Nice try.
The lack of transparency of the sedevacantists, their hiding and their subtlety, should make one suspicious of them right away.
-
Didn't the Archbishop tolerate 'non-dogmatic' sedevacantists within the SSPX? As far as I am aware, Fr. Roy falls under this category. Personally, I disagree with the 'non una cuм' position, but it is limited to just a 'theological opinion.'
Looking at these statements of Archbishop Lefebvre (two of which are post-1986), it is clear that the Archbishop did not tolerate sedevacantists.
1)Statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, November 8, 1979
“Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters, and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope[/b] or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid. Certainly, we suffer from this continual incoherence which consists in praising all the Liberal orientations of Vatican II and at the same time straining to mitigate its effects. But all of this must incite us to prayer and to the firm maintenance of Tradition rather than to the affirmation that the Pope is not the Pope.”
2) Excerpt from Archbishop Lefebvre’s conference in Flavigny, December 1988 – Fideliter March/April 1989
"So what is our attitude? It is clear that all those who are leaving us or who have left us for sedevacantism or because they want to be submitted to the present hierarchy of the Church all the while hoping to keep Tradition, we cannot have relations with them anymore. It is not possible.
Us, we say that we cannot be submitted to the ecclesiastical authority and keep Tradition. They say the opposite. They are deceiving the faithful. Despite the esteem we may have for them, there is of course no question of insulting them, but we do not want to engage in polemics and we prefer not to deal with them anymore. It is a sacrifice we have to make. But it did not start today, it has been going on for twenty years.
All those who separate from us, we are very affected by it, but we really cannot make another choice if we want to keep Tradition.We must be free from compromise as much with regard to sedevacantists as with regard to those who absolutely want to be submitted to the ecclesiastical authority.”
3) Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 79 Jan. – Feb. 1991
Archbishop Lefebvre: “I have always warned the faithful vis-à -vis the sedevacantists for example. There, also, people say: “The Mass is fine, so we go to it.”
Yes, there is the Mass. That’s fine, but there is also the sermon; there is the atmosphere, the conversations, contacts before and after, which make you little by little, change your ideas. It is therefore a danger and that’s why in general, I think it constitutes part of a whole. One does not merely go to Mass, one frequents a milieu.”
-
Father Roy is a good and holy priest. You should go back to the novus ordo to worship with the heretic Francis.
-
http://sodalitium-pianum.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-prayer-una-cuм-for-pope-in-canon-of.html (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.
-
The Archbishop is “the rule of Faith” for the Resistance and he used to be “the rule of Faith” for the SSPX.
....and how is that working out for them?
These sects have been powerless before the Revolution and its "kings"
-
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.
-
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.
Archbishop Lefebvre said that the "non una cuм" position was ridiculous (see below). It caused division, it still causes division and it will cause division as long as priests and bishops do not fall in line with the Catholic Church's teaching and the clear path of Archbishop Lefebvre on the matter (see Archbishop Lefebvre's 1990 explanation of the 1981 Oath of Fidelity).
Archbishop Lefebvre, retreat at St. Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
Concerning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the "non una cuм" sedevacantist error, after the Episcopal consecrations of 1988; here is an excerpt from a conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre during a retreat preached to the sisters of Saint-Michel en Brenne, France, on April 1st, 1989
“… And then, he [Dom Guillo] goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous…you know, this famous una cuм.., una cuм of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cuм? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel en Brenne). You say una cuм in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cuм summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer. Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed. "We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope." It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!
Then he [Dom Guillou] had a note about that to clarify a little: "In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Batte, the UNA cuм or "in union with" of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction "and " reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.
Let us collect the chaff, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be "kept in the holy religion" the "holy orders" and "Apostolic Lord" himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLIcuм AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES INSANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS."
It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? We ask to keep the Pope in the true religion.. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said "There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility". So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.
Then we must not keep this idea which is false! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, we no longer understand anything, we are completely desperate, we donot know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it."
-
(http://www.nationalturk.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Pope-Francis-Vist-Jarusalem-Holy-Land.jpg)
Yeah and later in the Canon, be sure to remember the "6 million".
-
(http://www.nationalturk.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Pope-Francis-Vist-Jarusalem-Holy-Land.jpg)
Yeah and later in the Canon, be sure to remember the "6 million".
(https://media.giphy.com/media/LlwcIllklQbIY/giphy.gif)
-
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
-
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.+
-
I'm glad that Fr. Roy's visit seems to have been peaceful and edifying, 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.+
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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,
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,
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.
-
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.
-
Invalid,
if you wish to quote, simply press the QUOTE button on the post you wash to quote.
Welcome, by the way!
-
Invalid,
if you wish to quote, simply press the QUOTE button on the post you wash to quote.
Welcome, by the way!
Thank you for your welcome. I am learning how to properly post. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I wonder if there is a tutorial I can read?
Invalid,
and living up to my name.
-
Thank you for your welcome. I am learning how to properly post. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I wonder if there is a tutorial I can read?
Invalid,
and living up to my name.
Then I presume your name is pronounced with the accent on the 1st and not the 2nd syllable! Nah! Just make more mistakes and we'll correct you :jumping2:
-
"Invalido"... what an appropriately symbolic name!
(http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Protestantized-Mass.jpg)
-
"Invalido"... what an appropriately symbolic name!
(http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Protestantized-Mass.jpg)
I would rather they, "Invalididn't", and converted to the True Mass for the good of their souls and many others.