See, SVs have a harder time with the notion that the Catholic Church could lose its Marks and become unrecognizable for 65 years.

Since you have a problem with the 65 years, Sean, let us know what the time limit would be before the Church would defect.  In order to make that assertion, you have to know how long is "too long".

Theoretically, for sedes the maximum vacancy time limit would be constrained by the death of the last bishop still with jurisdiction (since once he's gone, there's no way to restore apostolicity).

If I'm a sede, then that's the last bishop consecrated during the pontificate of Pius XII who still had ordinary jurisdiction, and who didn't allegedly later excommunicate himself for heresy (not who was merely still alive).

Anyone know who that was, and when he retired?

What is certain is that he is not exercising jurisdiction today.

One way or the other, sedevacantism leads to ecclesiavacantism.

Interesting.  The first paragraph of the latest Eleison Comments suggests otherwise -

However, by the time I left university, I had realized that the Newchurch represented a new religion, and I broke away from it.

What are Bp. Williamson's view of the Four Marks? The above quote doesn't suffice to explain his position on it. 

So, tell me, genius

You need to reconsider and repent of your heretical view of the Papacy and the Church, which is nothing more than a thinly-veiled repackaging of Old Catholicism.

No genius here, Ladislaus.

No Old Catholic either.

Nor do I consider that you are a sinner in need of repentance, nor a heretic.

But I disagree with your view in this profound crisis in the Church, as obviously many more intelligent, learned and saintly than I do.

The point I meant to make, doing it rather poorly again, no doubt, was that either side can make an argument from the point of view of the Church's indefectibility. Yet I believe neither side can claim infallibility, and that is precisely the problem with the SVs arguments, always trying to say too much, always trying to make their arguments into dogmatic teachings when they are not, and drawing from them definite and extreme practical applications, like deposing Popes! This is the difference between a Ladislaus and an ABL. Please think about it. God bless.

P.S. In all honesty, I think you are far closer to the genius than I. Perhaps too much of an original thinker, which is something I could never be, I'm too dim-witted! 

From memory, the way it worked in my neck of the woods I think is typical.....

The then Father Sanborn, over time, worked himself into a frenzy in order to become sede. When he was fresh out of the seminary his sermons were awesome, even spell binding (to me) and I would say all of his parishioners  really loved that man as a true holy and courageous priest with a great gift of communicating to his sheep! I still have a deep respect for him to this day from sermons he gave some 45 odd years ago.

Some how the word got out and almost every week you would see a new family or new people who heard of a TLM being offered in an old school's gymnasium. His little chapel was getting crowded and growing.

Then seemingly out of the blue one day his sermons switched gears as he started preaching against the pope, before long he started calling the pope, in a totally disrespectful way, "Montini" (most people did not know who "Montini" even was at the time), blaming him for everything. Shortly thereafter he came out insisting he was not the pope. I'm only guessing because it was so long ago, but I would say the transition from R&R to sedeism took him about 3 to 4 months.

During his early ravings against the pope from the pulpit, one by one his parishioners began leaving because of his sermons against the pope, but it was only few weeks after he went full on sede that more than half of his parishioners abruptly left due to his preaching exclusively and almost obsessively, sedeism.

The sad thing is, there was no need for him to switch gears at all, none whatsoever. All it accomplished was to stop the growth, cause division among the faithful, and who knows what became of those with nowhere else to go but left due to him switching gears for no reason, who knows how many of them left the Church altogether and/or went back the the NO?

Whatever happened, this was and still is the result of sedeism, this is the divisive nature inherent in sedeism that from then till now and into the future, is repeated over and over. For whatever reason, the sedes blind themselves to this, it's only purpose.

Yes, I agree that division is a painful and sad reality.  I think people should be able to disagree and still love each other but the reality is that families can be torn apart by these issues. 

Is division always bad though?

Does God sometimes want division?

I mean, Noah's Ark was pretty divisive, wasn't it?


Consider that Gideon's army had 32,000 soldiers against 135,000.

So did God say, we need to make some concessions with these false god worshippers and get more troops?

No.  God was divisive.  He brought the number down to only 300.


How many saints had to leave or even run away from their families?



Did Jesus say it was always bad to be divisive?

51Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. 52For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. 53The father shall be divided against the son and the son against his father: the mother against the daughter and the daughter against her mother: the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.  Luke 12:51

This quote from St John is saying that a heretic is Antichrist. But it does not say that every anti-Christ is a heretic. Do you see the difference? Every boy is a male, but not every male is a boy. We ought not to make ABL say something he did not mean.

On the una cuм question, which I am guessing is what you mean by "prayers in union with theirs", we only need to pick up some classical studies on the Mass to learn what this prayer in the Canon of the Mass means. Here's a quick selection from my library:

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Gihr, 1902, The First Prayer of the Canon before the Consecration:
After this manner do we, in the first place, offer our prayers and the Sacrifice for Holy Church, for she is, indeed, our greatest benefactress, our spiritual mother... The general fruit of the Sacrifice falls the more copiously to the share of the individual members of the mystical body of Christ in proportion as they contribute to the common welfare of the Church, hence we have now a special and an express offering and prayer for the Pope, and for the chief pastor of the diocese in which the Holy Mass is celebrated...

The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy, by Fortesque, 1912:
The Intercession (from "in primis"), now scattered throughout the Canon, begins by praying for the Church, Pope, bishop and the faithful...in the Middle Ages the celebrant added a prayer for himself...

The Heart of the Mass, compiled from approved sources, Imprimatur 1936:
After praying for the Church in general, a special petition is added for the Sovereign Pontiff and the diocesan bishop. Great responsibilities rest upon our ecclesiastical superiors; the welfare of mankind depends largely upon their fidelity to duty; therefore, we implore the divine assistance in their behalf.

St John is saying those who deny Christ are antichrist. 

Are you saying that the term antichrist only means a sinner?


As for St Robert Bellarmine also says:

St. Robert Bellarmine:

“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

So it's automatic.  

I'm not a council member and I don't need to judge and punish the guy, I just need to stop being in union with him.



And these saints say:


St. Alphonsus Liguori:

“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”

"at once"


St. Antoninus:

“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

"without any other sentence"


He's separated from the Church and no longer the head.

On the una cuм question, which I am guessing is what you mean by "prayers in union with theirs", we only need to pick up some classical studies on the Mass to learn what this prayer in the Canon of the Mass means. Here's a quick selection from my library:

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Gihr, 1902, The First Prayer of the Canon before the Consecration:
After this manner do we, in the first place, offer our prayers and the Sacrifice for Holy Church, for she is, indeed, our greatest benefactress, our spiritual mother... The general fruit of the Sacrifice falls the more copiously to the share of the individual members of the mystical body of Christ in proportion as they contribute to the common welfare of the Church, hence we have now a special and an express offering and prayer for the Pope, and for the chief pastor of the diocese in which the Holy Mass is celebrated...

The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy, by Fortesque, 1912:
The Intercession (from "in primis"), now scattered throughout the Canon, begins by praying for the Church, Pope, bishop and the faithful...in the Middle Ages the celebrant added a prayer for himself...

The Heart of the Mass, compiled from approved sources, Imprimatur 1936:
After praying for the Church in general, a special petition is added for the Sovereign Pontiff and the diocesan bishop. Great responsibilities rest upon our ecclesiastical superiors; the welfare of mankind depends largely upon their fidelity to duty; therefore, we implore the divine assistance in their behalf.

Oops.  I'm sorry, but I quoted this in my last post instead of the St Robert quote from in the other post you had shared. 


So from what you shared it would seem that "una cuм" means only that we are praying "for" the pope.

I wonder why they use the words "una cuм" then instead of "for"?


I wonder about this further because I know that if we ask for a priest to offer Mass for a relative and donate a stipend they ask if the person is a practicing Catholic or if they left the Church or were never a member.

If they are not practicing Catholics they cannot be named in the Mass.  It cannot be offered specifically for them by name.  We can only offer the Mass for a "private intention" and not name the individual at Mass since we can't pray for heretics or apostates and offer the Mass for them.  Isn't that right?

And I don't need to have a council come to town and declare my dear relative who I would very much like to have named and offer the Mass "for" a heretic or apostate.  It's really up to my personal judgement because frankly we usually can tell if somebody is a practicing Catholic or a heretic or apostate.  So we can trust my conscience and good sense on that matter.

Yet, if the pope is a heretic or apostate we can pray publicly at Mass "for" him and offer the sacrifice "for" him? 

That doesn't make sense to me. 

Perhaps if he is only an antichrist we can pray for him at Mass?  Is that right?  Perhaps that could be if antichrist means "sinner" but I don't think so if antichrist means heretic or apostate.

Also, I may be wrong but my understanding is that the Mass is inherently offered in union with the other (valid) masses worldwide.  So although I did know that we are praying "for" the pontiff and bishop, we are also praying "in union" with them.  That's one of the reasons why they use the words "una cuм" isn't it?  So as to show unity?

But unity with antichrists?  Ugh.  Well if antichrist only means sinner then maybe that works.


But it definitely shows unity because that becomes apparent in the reverse scenario.  If we do not name the pope during Mass it is seen as an act of schism.


Again this is what I don't understand:


So by naming him we are only praying "for" him.

We are not praying "in union with" him.

But if we don't name him we are in schism

because we are declaring we are not "una cuм" in union with him.



Does that make sense?

How can it mean only mean "for" when we name him

but mean "in union with" (una cuм)

when we don't name him?




Here are some quotes to consider with an explanation I found helpful:


Rev. Maurice De La Taille in his book Mysterium Fidei. There are two points to be noted in this reference. The first point is: "Hence were anyone to mention by name an infidel, a heretic, a shismatic, or an excommunicated person...he would certainly violate the law of the Church."
THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED, FROM THE ORIGINAL, OF Rev. FRANCIS SPIRAGO, professor of Theology. EDITED BY Rev. RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J. New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: BENZIGER BROTHERS, Printers to the Holy Apostolic See, 1899, Nihil Obstat, Thos. L. Kinkead, Censor Librorum, Imprimatur, +MICHAEL AUGUSTINE, Archbishop of New York, New York, August 8, 1899, p. 549.


In the Roman Mass, after Lavabo, a priest prays Suscipe sancta Trinitas... etc. Then he turns to the people, and facing them says in an audible voice "Oráte, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrifícium acceptábile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipoténtem" "Pray, brethren: that my and your sacrifice may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty".

Also, when at the words una cuм famulo tuo Papa nostro N. a priest adds the name of the reigning Pope, and at the words et antistite nostro N. he adds the name of the Ordinary of the place where he says Mass, the faithful are uniting in spirit with the priest. In other words, the faithful agree with a priest when he mentions the Pope and the Bishop, and they agree with a priest when he mentions a public heretic, or a schismatic.

By mentioning the Pope by name, the priest manifests unity with him, as the visible head of the Catholic Church upon earth. By mentioning a heretic, instead of the Pope, the priest manifests unity with a heretic as the head of the Catholic Church. Laity in attendance manifest the same unity either with a Pope or a heretic.

The Church's Teaching is very clear, that during the Holy Mass the faithful are uniting themselves in spirit to the priest both in the offering of the sacrifice and in liturgical prayers, and here are some excerpts:

THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED: 5. Not the priest alone, but all the faithful who are present at Mass, may offer the holy sacrifice for a special intention.
The people who are present when Mass is celebrated offer it with the officiating priest. The priest offers the sacrifice in his own person, the people offer it by his hands.

Some say that by mentioning the Pope in the Canon, the priest does not offer sacrifice of the Mass una cuм (together with) the Pope, but he only prays for the Pope, and that it has completely different meaning for the laity when they participate in Holy Mass.

Let us see, whether there is a matter if una cuм is translated as "together with thy servant N. our Pope" (which is literal translation) as it is in THE ROMAN MISSAL IN ENGLISH FOR THE USE OF THE LAITY, or "for thy servant N. our Pope" as it is translated by Rev. F. X. Lasance or ADRIAN FORTESCUE.

THE ROMAN MISSAL, TRANSLATED INTO THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE FOR THE USE OF THE LAITY:

"WE therefore, humbly pray and beseech thee most merciful Father, thro' Jesus Christ thy Son, our Lord, that thou wouldst vouchsafe to accept and bless these gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices, which in the first place we offer thee for thy holy Catholic Church, to which vouchsafe to grant peace; as also to preserve, unite, and govern it throughout the world: together with thy servant N. our pope N. our Bishop, as also all ortnodox believers and professors of the catholic and apostolic Faith."
THE ROMAN MISSAL, TRANSLATED INTO THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE FOR THE USE OF THE LAITY. PUBLISHED WITH THE APPBOBATION OF THE RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF PHILADELPHIA, FIRST REVISED EDITION. PHILADELPHIA. PUBLISHED BY EUGENE cuмMISKEY, 1037 CHESTNUT STREET. 1865, duly approved of, and recommended by me to the faithful. Frederick James, Bishop of Philadelphia, p. xxxiii.

The New Roman Missal by Rev. F. X. Lasance:

"THEREFORE, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to receive and to bless these + gifts, these + presents, these + holy unspotted sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to guard, unite, and guide her, throughout the world; as also for Thy servant N., our Pope, and W., our Bishop, and for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith."
The New Roman Missal, by Rev. F. X. Lasance, p. 777

THE MASS A STUDY OF THE ROMAN LITURGY:

"The Intercession (from "in primis"), now spread throughout the Canon, begins by praying for the Church, Pope, bishop and the faithful." THE MASS A STUDY OF THE ROMAN LITURGY BY ADRIAN FORTESCUE, LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, NEW YORK, BOMBAY AND CALCUTTA 1914, Nihil obstat: F. THOS. BERGH, O.S.B., Censor dcputatus. Imprimatur: Edm. Can. Surmont, Vic. gen. Westmonasterii, die 28 Martii, 1912, p. 329.

No matter how una cuм is translated "with our Pope", or "for our Pope", from it is clear that the emphasis in the prayer of the Canon is on the offering the sacrifice by the priest and the faithful for the holy Catholic Church in unity with Pope as the visible head of the Catholic Church upon earth. By mentioning the Pope by name the priest manifests his unity with the Pope, and the faithful attending the Mass manifest their unity with the Pope as well.

On the other hand, if the priest mentions a heretic or a schismatic instead of the Pope, he thus manifests unity with a heretic or a schismatic, and the laity do the same through the priest."


http://www.catholicmessage.org/blog/cmri-una-cuм-issues-matrimonial-decisions-jurisdiction/2022-11-04-415


Considering the above,

perhaps it would be okay to name an antichrist in the Mass and offer it in union him

but not with a heretic?

I find that hard to believe, but I tend to favor St John's definition of antichrist in Sacred Scripture.

Before going sede I asked priests how we could unite the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in union with antichrists and they gave me no answer.


That's why I'd like to know if there is another definition that an antichrist is just a sinner but I haven't found one.

Perhaps ABL used that definition of antichrist?  Did ABL think antichrist meant "sinner"?


I just can't imagine looking Jesus in the eyes and explaining why I offered his Most Precious Body and Blood

in union with antichrists who pray to strange gods.


I don't think, "Because ABL or Chazal or Lad etc...said it was okay." will do.


I mean I have in the past, but never again.


It just seems to me to be extremely offensive to the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus and a violation of the First Commandment.

It's a way to get me (and Jesus' most adorable Body and Blood) to be a part of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr One World Religion.

Ugh!

Unless somebody can convince me otherwise.


I mean, I'm willing to do whatever it takes to obey God's commandments

and time is running out.

Division is always bad when it happens among the faithful because it divides the Church as such.

What you seem to miss here is that the priest, for no good reason was the cause of the disunity among the faithful, we call this "scattering the flock." Why was it scattered? It was scattered due to him being the cause by his scandalous preaching of his own puny opinions and ideas instead of from the Gospel. Now, if the parishioners had left due to him preaching the truth of the Gospel, which is what his duty actually is, then that would be another matter entirely and your below quote might then apply.
Also recall Our Lord saying "Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh." The scandals come to divide, to separate the sheep from the goats, to get the sheep to go with the goats, that is their purpose. Scandal "must needs be" because God uses scandal to separate the wheat from the chaff.

In your above quote, it is scandal which causes the separation and takes away the peace Our Lord speaks of. But when we have unity of faith, we have the peace Our Lord promised..."Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid."

Well, division from joining worship with heretics, apostates and idol worshippers is a necessary form of division.

These Bishops have had a difficult time discerning the matters and it has been a process so I try to cut them some slack while they were figuring it out while still allowing for some disagreement with them.

It was the popes in Rome who were responsible for causing the scandals.

Now the dust has settled though, and things have become very, very clear.

I understand where you are coming from, though, Stubborn.  Yes, we all want that peace.

For myself, I couldn't find peace in uniting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to the prayers of idol worshipping antichrists. 

I couldn't find peace in the concept that the Church would hand me a plate of dogma and doctrine and tell me I have to pick through it and figure out what is true and what isn't.

Remaining in union with the constant drama from the Apostate Vatican provides no peace.  All they are providing is heartache.

I don't find peace in speaking ill of men we recognize as true popes.  That should never be.  That is a scandal. 

Either we should never speak ill or we should recognize what seems quite obvious:  they are not true popes.

It appears that the Church is following the footsteps of Our Lord so that the Shepherd was struck and the sheep were scattered.

Perhaps this has to take place to fulfill the Scripture?

Some like AB Vigano and Bishop Williamson are wrongly looking to Moscow for the future of the Church as if the One Holy Roman Catholic Church is in ashes and they will provide the "Third Rome".  The One True Faith is not there.

The true Faith and the true Church is still here.  There are disagreements but the true Church is not preaching false religions, worshipping idols and sending souls to Hell.  It is preserving the Apostolic Faith as best it can even though its members are sinners and the faithful are scattered. 

This seems similar to the scattered faithful during the Arian crisis and the underground Church during the French Revolution and in China or during the 100's of years of persecution of the faithful in Japan.

Those were also years of great division.