Author Topic: How to behave in uncertainty (Read 8743 times)

NIFH · « **on:** March 17, 2025, 03:24:21 PM »

Fr. Hesse:

"Even if I personally was convinced that he's not pope, do you think I'm stupid? If I mention [the pope] in the Canon and at the Last Judgement I find out he wasn't pope, what is God gonna do to me? Nothing. But what if I firmly believe that he's not pope, and I don't mention him in the Canon anymore, and at the Last Judgement I find out he was pope? ...uh-oh!"

Praying for one's superiors is a grave duty. You can't just dispense yourself from praying for the pope in a prescribed prayer in the Mass until it's for sure he's not pope.

I've heard tell about non una cuм priests who say, "We don't condemn those who choose to say the una cuм." Are they admitting it's possible the pope is still pope? If so, you'd better say the una cuм.

Or do they mean priests who say the una cuм might not be personally guilty for mentioning an antipope? If so, they still condemn the act itself of saying una cuм. It's no use being divisive and then saying something that sounds nice to hide your divisiveness.

Perhaps they mean, "You have your truth and we have ours." Which is, of course, the very essence of modernism.

Archbishop Lefebvre was right to exclude them. He always permitted 'I betcha this pope isn't pope,' but to say 'there IS no pope'--he had a term for that attitude: schism.

Giovanni Berto · « **Reply #1 on:** March 17, 2025, 03:56:19 PM »

The question is open. I don't think we can condemn anyone on either side. We can condemn those who excommunicate people who don't agree with them on the una cuм issue. They are the dangerous ones.

Seraphina · « **Reply #2 on:** March 17, 2025, 04:12:37 PM »

Quote from: Giovanni Berto on March 17, 2025, 03:56:19 PM

The question is open. I don't think we can condemn anyone on either side. We can condemn those who excommunicate people who don't agree with them on the una cuм issue. They are the dangerous ones.

So silly! “We,” assuming you mean the various flavors of traditional Catholics, have no power or authority to “excommunicate” anyone! We may disagree so vehemently as to refuse to associate with them, not attend their chapels or accept their priests and Sacraments. One may even ban them, physically eject them from your chapel, or from entering the property. (If done solely from malice, better get to Confession, yourself!) To excommunicate is impossible; to drive away from Christ is deserving of donning a millstone necklace and being thrown into the sea.
In matters that appear equally weighted to us, which is better/worse; to err on the side of mercy or on the side of judgment? God cannot err, but which decision of yours do you prefer He take into account at your judgment?

Giovanni Berto · « **Reply #3 on:** March 17, 2025, 05:01:09 PM »

Quote from: Seraphina on March 17, 2025, 04:12:37 PM

So silly! “We,” assuming you mean the various flavors of traditional Catholics, have no power or authority to “excommunicate” anyone! We may disagree so vehemently as to refuse to associate with them, not attend their chapels or accept their priests and Sacraments. One may even ban them, physically eject them from your chapel, or from entering the property. (If done solely from malice, better get to Confession, yourself!) To excommunicate is impossible; to drive away from Christ is deserving of donning a millstone necklace and being thrown into the sea.
In matters that appear equally weighted to us, which is better/worse; to err on the side of mercy or on the side of judgment? God cannot err, but which decision of yours do you prefer He take into account at your judgment?

My post might be poorly written, because we basically agree on the issue.

I think that people (clergy and laity) should not ban or excommunicate anybody, but that they should call out those who want to do it, because it is a divisive attitude that benefits nobody.

Predestination2 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 17, 2025, 05:07:18 PM »

Canon 199

§ 1. Whoever has ordinary power of jurisdiction can delegate it to another in whole or in part, unless it is expressly provided otherwise by law.

§ 2. Even the power of jurisdiction delegated by the Apostolic See can be subdelegated either for an act or even habitually, unless [the one with the power] was chosen because of personal characteristics or subdelegation is prohibited.

§ 3. Power delegated for a universe of causes by one below the Roman Pontiff who has ordinary power can be subdelegated for individual cases.

§ 4. In other cases, delegated power of jurisidiction can only be subdelegated by a concession expressly made, although delegated judges can delegate the non-jurisdictional elements [of their work] without express commission.

§ 5. No subdelegated power can be subdelegated again, unless this was expressly granted.

Predestination2 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 17, 2025, 05:12:09 PM »

Translation of the Latin Original(Above)

"By virtue of the Plenitude of the powers of the Holy Apostolic See, we appoint as our Legate Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc, titular bishop of Saigon, whom we invest with all the necessary powers, for purposes known to us."

Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, on 15 March 1938, the seventeenth year of our pontificate. Pope Pius XI,

Explanation of these powers

What does this docuмent mean ? Let us examine a parallel case in which Pius XI conceded identical powers to another prelate. On 10 March 1920, the same pope Pius XI dictated the same motu proprio for Mgr d'Herbigny (S.J.). The account is recorded in the book of Father Paul Lesourd, published by Lethielleux Editions under the title "Le Jesuite clandestine"

Here is the translation

Motu Proprio By virtue of the plenitude of the Apostolic power, we appoint as our Delegate Michel d'Herbigngy (S.J.), titular bishop of Troie, whom we invest with all the appropriate and necessary powers, for purposes known to us.

Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, on 10 March 1926, the fifth year of our pontificate. Pius XI, Pope

The two cases are analogous. With this Act of the Holy See, the two bishops received pontifical powers, similar to those of Patriarchs. The details of these powers are explained by Pius XI himself, as reported by Father Lesourd in the following terms:

"Orally, the Holy Father first enumerated in detail all the powers which he conferred, including the selection of priests to be ordained and to confer on them the episcopate without the need for them to have pontifical bulls, nor therefore to give their signatures inviting them to act accordingly on the strength of the oath."

"Then, after having at length set out in detail by word of mouth all the powers which were really extraordinary, the Pope resumed them most solemnly as follows"

"In one word, we grant to you all the pontifical powers of the Pope himself, which are not incommunicable by divine right."(translation from the French)

Seraphina · « **Reply #6 on:** March 17, 2025, 05:15:09 PM »

Quote from: Giovanni Berto on March 17, 2025, 05:01:09 PM

My post might be poorly written, because we basically agree on the issue.

I think that people (clergy and laity) should not ban or excommunicate anybody, but that they should call out those who want to do it, because it is a divisive attitude that benefits nobody.

Oops! My bad. I was responding mainly to the OP.

Seraphina · « **Reply #7 on:** March 17, 2025, 06:24:17 PM »

To P-2;
One cannot answer the question without first certainly defining proper matter for excommunication. Since there is disagreement among holy saints regarding who can or cannot be Pope. Blind Obedience, R&R, Sedevacantism, Sedeprivationism, or any variety thereof have as of yet no direct Magisterial ruling, one can only strongly infer a number of viewpoints.
If this were not the case, people could be rightly excommunicated on spurious bases.
Examples:— I can be excommunicated if I publicly go about my chapel denying the Real Presence and corrupting the children.
I can incur automatic excommunication by desecrating the Holy Eucharist or by having a willful abortion.
I cannot be excommunicated for not believing in a private revelation, even if it is well known, accepted by many faithful but not others.
I cannot be excommunicated for a venial sin or for a trivial matter that is no sin at all.
Let’s say I find $3.00 blown against the sidewalk in the church parking lot. I should bring it inside and attempt to find the rightful owner. If I cannot, I should give it to the priest or place it in the poor box. Instead, I sin by keeping it for myself. It’s a venial sin but not worthy of excommunication.
In another instance, the bishop sees me after Mass having coffee and donuts with a parishioner he personally dislikes because he has learned that person clandestinely let the air out of the tires of his car. He has not confessed, not apologized, or made restitution and has no plans to do so. I know nothing of it, the issue with the bishop or the fact that the bishop’s car is in the parking lot with four flat tires! The bishop may not excommunicate me, even if I later learn the facts of the matter. The Pope Himself cannot excommunicate me in such a situation. No one is guilty of another’s sin of which he is invincibly ignorant, or in which he is not involved.
Too often, trads, both laity and religious are Pharisaical and lacking in charity when it comes to matters not absolutely defined.

Seraphina · « **Reply #8 on:** March 17, 2025, 06:30:28 PM »

Quote from: Seraphina on March 17, 2025, 05:15:09 PM

Oops! My bad. I was responding mainly to the OP.

Okay, who gave me the 👎🏽? And why?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #9 on:** March 17, 2025, 10:03:08 PM »

Quote from: NIFH on March 17, 2025, 03:24:21 PM

Fr. Hesse:

"Even if I personally was convinced that he's not pope, do you think I'm stupid? If I mention [the pope] in the Canon and at the Last Judgement I find out he wasn't pope, what is God gonna do to me? Nothing. But what if I firmly believe that he's not pope, and I don't mention him in the Canon anymore, and at the Last Judgement I find out he was pope? ...uh-oh!"

I'm sorry, is this supposed to be persuasive? It isn't even an argument. It's just rhetoric.

Quote

Praying for one's superiors is a grave duty. You can't just dispense yourself from praying for the pope in a prescribed prayer in the Mass until it's for sure he's not pope.

There's a well known axiom of moralists and canonists: a doubtful superior is no superior. It's related to a similar axiom, that a doubtful law is no law.

The Catholic teaching is that you do not have to "submit" to a doubtful superior. You have things exactly backwards my friend.

Stubborn · « **Reply #10 on:** March 18, 2025, 05:32:31 AM »

Quote from: NIFH on March 17, 2025, 03:24:21 PM

Fr. Hesse:

"Even if I personally was convinced that he's not pope, do you think I'm stupid? If I mention [the pope] in the Canon and at the Last Judgement I find out he wasn't pope, what is God gonna do to me? Nothing. But what if I firmly believe that he's not pope, and I don't mention him in the Canon anymore, and at the Last Judgement I find out he was pope? ...uh-oh!"

Praying for one's superiors is a grave duty. You can't just dispense yourself from praying for the pope in a prescribed prayer in the Mass until it's for sure he's not pope.

I've heard tell about non una cuм priests who say, "We don't condemn those who choose to say the una cuм." Are they admitting it's possible the pope is still pope? If so, you'd better say the una cuм.

Or do they mean priests who say the una cuм might not be personally guilty for mentioning an antipope? If so, they still condemn the act itself of saying una cuм. It's no use being divisive and then saying something that sounds nice to hide your divisiveness.

Perhaps they mean, "You have your truth and we have ours." Which is, of course, the very essence of modernism.

Archbishop Lefebvre was right to exclude them. He always permitted 'I betcha this pope isn't pope,' but to say 'there IS no pope'--he had a term for that attitude: schism.

In the same vein....

"...We say to you dear faithful people: Ask your priest whether he includes or omits the name of the Pope in his Masses. If he [omits it], give him no support; and give him no Mass intentions. Tell him respectfully:

'Father (Bishop), I shall continue to come to Mass here. I have nowhere else to go, and I am bound under pain of mortal sin to assist at Mass on Sunday. But you have done my family and me, and all these other people, a grave injustice. You have exploited my want of theological knowledge to involve me in something which I had no understanding of. I trusted that you knew what you were doing. Now,I am not so sure. I am not going to support your schism in any way. My family and I have enough difficulty trying to do the right thing, without doing this which is most questionable. Without knowing the science of theology, I can see that it is not necessary for you or for me to know whether Pope John Paul is the legitimate successor of St. Peter.

It doesn't hurt anything to pray for him in the Mass; it surely could not be wrong to do so, even if it is an honest mistake. Pope or not, God knows that he who is called John Paul II needs our prayers, as all of us need God's mercy. But to attack the office of the papacy, and to separate oneself from it, is a serious thing to be wrong about. This Sedevacantism is your opinion. But the Mass not yours, and I know you do not have the right to change a word of it.

I have heard you say the same thing about those who brought in the New Mass. And now this is what you have done! You are not being fair, and, it seems to me, you are not being wise. If you insist on being a schismatic, you should leave our Catholic church and gather your own flock from elsewhere. Tell the people from the first day that you do not accept Pope John Paul II as the true Pope, and see how many return." - From Fr. Wathen's, Who Shall Ascend?

anonymouscatholicus · « **Reply #11 on:** March 18, 2025, 06:43:55 AM »

This is the same Father Wathen who called the so called new "Mass" illegal and immoral as if the supreme pontiff has no right to introduce new Rites (newsflash- he does, see Mediator Dei 58- "It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.")

Also to call it illegal and for it to be given by legitimate pontiff is an oxymoron. And how in the world could Christ's Immaculate Bride give us something immoral? That would be a blasphemy and is actually falling under Trent's anathema:

"CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema."

R&R camp would like us to think sitting in the middle, or following the path of dubious and invalid rites, false popes and legitimising the false teachings that lead to hell is somehow a safer route. That's nonsense. True catholic principles tell us that doubtful rites need to be avoided and that non catholics cannot be popes.

Stubborn · « **Reply #12 on:** March 18, 2025, 07:06:30 AM »

Fr. Wathen was right, the new "mass" is indeed illegal and immoral. So what's your point? That a pope could not do what the conciliar popes have done? Ridiculous.

The same people who think such will tell you that the pope has not exercised his infallibility since PPXII defined the dogma on the Assumption, and that popes have exercised their infallibility only very rarely in 2000 years....and they are right.

And Canon VII is talking about the True Mass of PPV.

Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on March 18, 2025, 06:43:55 AM

R&R camp would like us to think sitting in the middle, or following the path of dubious and invalid rites, false popes and legitimising the false teachings that lead to hell is somehow a safer route. That's nonsense. True catholic principles tell us that doubtful rites need to be avoided and that non catholics cannot be popes.

Priests and laypeople forget or deny that it is only their opinion that the Chair is vacant. Fr. Wathen states it as the Church has always taught it....

"We say that that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy, which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy."

anonymouscatholicus · « **Reply #13 on:** March 18, 2025, 07:43:46 AM »

Private judgement? Do you get these fed by Menzingen inc. without double checking?

Does this sound like private judgement to you?

"It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Is it for this group [=Lefebvrists], not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecuмenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith? As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful Successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock (cf. Lk 22:32; Jn 21:15 ff.), and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith.

The adoption of the new Ordo Missae [order of the Mass] is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with the authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine popolo [without people attending]. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent.

With the same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, we call for the same obedience to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation of the Council decrees. Any initiative which tries to obstruct them cannot claim the prerogative of rendering a service to the Church; in fact it causes the Church serious damage."

If Montini was pope you better obey as he said above, as this is no private judegement. He envoked authority from God almighty here. This is the so called "pope" binding you to obey, as true pope has every right to impose new liturgy (as pope Pius XII) has confirmed.

Do you think pope Pius XII errs with this quote? "..loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all" (Mystici Corporis, 66)

Something's gotta give. Either pope Pius XII errs, or it is impossible for this to happen.

Stubborn · « **Reply #14 on:** March 18, 2025, 07:50:42 AM »

Quote from: anonymouscatholicus on March 18, 2025, 07:43:46 AM

Private judgement?

Yes, private judgement. That's all it is, and for the eternal sake of the sedes, I sincerely hope that they've judged correctly.

Author Topic: How to behave in uncertainty (Read 8743 times)

NIFH

How to behave in uncertainty

Giovanni Berto

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Seraphina

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Giovanni Berto

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Predestination2

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Predestination2

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Seraphina

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Seraphina

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Seraphina

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Mithrandylan

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Stubborn

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

anonymouscatholicus

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Stubborn

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

anonymouscatholicus

Re: How to behave in uncertainty

Stubborn

Re: How to behave in uncertainty