Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2018, 10:14:11 AM

Title: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2018, 10:14:11 AM
Seems relevant once again:

http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/


(http://sodalitium-pianum.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Missale_Romanum_Pustet.jpg)
“Non Una cuм” and the Resistance
By Sean Johnson,
20 January 2017

Introduction:
As the deterioration of the papacy accelerates under Pope Francis, with revealed doctrine consistently being openly flouted and contradicted, some priests in the Resistance have embarked upon a campaign to make the prayer for the Pope in the canon of the Mass (ie., “una cuм famulo tuo Papa nostro Francisco”) optional.  These usually deny being sedevacantists, instead preferring to argue that, “as the status of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II Popes is uncertain (so they say), likewise, so too ought the rendition of the prayer “una cuм” (which means “One with thy servant, Pope Francis”) be optional, since we cannot be sure he really is a Pope.”

These same priests will often be found wielding a newly created term: “Dogmatic sedeplenists,” by which they mean to adversely describe those Catholics who are rightly intolerant of the suggestion that the recognition of Francis as Pope is optional.  Just as the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs created the term “homophobia” (with its connotations of irrational opposition) to make their opponents seem the “bad guys,” create a perception of being unjustly persecuted, and spread the idea that sɛҳuąƖ orientation was merely a choice or personal preference, a similar tactic is used by the “non una cuм” priests:

“Who can say whether Francis is Pope?  As the matter is doubtful, we ought not persecute -or be dogmatic- in the defense or assertion of his Papacy.  We ought to tolerate those with opposing views until the Church settles the matter, etc.  And after all, since we cannot pray for heretics in the Canon of the Mass, it is better to leave Francis’ name out.”

By this artifice, they hope to create sympathy and openness among Resistance Catholics to the idea that one may decide on his own accord whether or not the “una cuм” prayer should be prayed for Francis, or as they now prefer “una cuм Petro.”

Let us review Church teaching to discover whether this is justified and permitted.


What Does the Church Teach About Praying for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass?
In 1756, Pope Benedict XIV promulgated the encyclical Ex Quo,1 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-1) which announced to the Church that the “Euchologion”2 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-2)  (http://file:///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn2)of the Eastern uniates had been corrected in conformity with Catholic doctrine.  One of the corrections which had taken place was the insertion of the prayer for the Pope (which quite logically was absent in the schismatic Euchologion).

The Holy Father explained:

“But however it may be with this disputed point of ecclesiastical learning, it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: “This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion” (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition). This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: “Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world” (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: “It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world” (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).1 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-1) (http://file:///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn3)

It is evident, therefore, that the omission of the prayer for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass is considered by the Church to be a schismatic act, which deprives the violator of communion with the Catholic Church.


But Who is to Say Francis is a Pope?
The “non una cuм” priests attempt to skirt this trap by questioning the legitimacy of Francis’ pontificate: “Sure, this applies to validly reigning Popes, but since it is not certain Francis is a legitimate Pope, it is not clear this passage from Benedict XIV’s encyclical applies to him.”

But is it really true that the legitimacy of Francis’ pontificate is, for a Catholic, a matter open to question?

Siscoe/Salza cite several weighty authorities asserting the contrary: 2 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-2) (http://file:///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn4)

1)   Cardinal Billot, S.J. expressly denies that God could allow a false Pope to be recognized as a true Pope:

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [a Pope becoming a heretic], at least one point should be considered absolutely incontrovertible, and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time.  He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election.  He cannot however permit the whole Church to accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.  For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”3 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-3) (http://file:///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn5)

2)   Msgr. Van Noort asserts the legitimacy of a reigning Pope to be a dogmatic fact (and therefore unquestionable4 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-4) (http://file:///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn6)):

“The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts.  This proposition is theologically certain.  A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, but on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth.  The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: Was the First Vatican Council a legitimate ecuмenical council?  Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible?  Was Pius XII legitimately elected Bishop of Rome?  One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the First Vatican Council are infallible; whether the Vulgate is truly sacred Scripture; whether Pius XII is to be recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church.”5 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-5)

3)   Fr. Berry’s manual (lauded by both sedevacantists and Catholics) teaches the following:

“A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine.  For example, was the First Vatican Council truly ecuмenical?  Was Pius IX a legitimate Pope?  Was the election of Pius XI valid?  Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or Pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church.  It is evident then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecuмenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.”6 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-6) (http://file:///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn8)

4)   Siscoe/Salza also cite the 1951 work of Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J. “On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning them (http://file:///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn9)7 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-7)” as declaring:
“The rejection of a dogmatic fact is a mortal sin against faith.”8 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-8) (http://file:///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn10)

It is therefore scarcely tenable to claim, as the “non una cuм” priests do, that the mandate from Pope Benedict XIV’s encyclical Ex Quo can be evaded on the pretext that it is not certain Francis is a legitimate Pope, when the Church considers that determination to be one of dogmatic fact (and therefore theologically certain).


But We Do Accept Francis as Pope!
One priest I recently corresponded with on this issue said to me, “Anyone who says that I am a sedevacantist is a liar!”

Then in the very next breath, he continued to explain to me that:

-He rejects the authority of Francis;

-He rejects the jurisdiction of Francis;

-He refuses to say the name of Francis in the Canon...

Is that position coherent? [Note: This is a dishonest ploy: These priests are sedeprivationists, which they would superficially distinguish from sedevacantists]

Can one who claims Francis has no authority, or jurisdiction, and whose name he refuses to pray in the Mass, avoid the label of “sedevacantist?”

No.

As (sedevacantist) Bishop Sanborn explained in a well-known article, the prayer “una cuм” is the litmus test for sedevacantism:

“Because the rubrics instruct the priest to leave out the name of the pope or bishop if the see is vacant (i.e., when a pope dies and the new pope is not elected), the mention or non-mention of the name by the priest is a litmus test for the priest’s position about John Paul II [or Francis] and the New Church. If he thinks that John Paul II is the true Pope, successor of Saint Peter, then he must place his name in the Canon. If, on the other hand, he does not hold him to be a true Pope, but a false one, then the priest must not mention his name in the Canon. So this little phrase in the Mass, una cuм, says it all: is he or isnt he the Pope?9 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-9) (http://file:///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn11)

And after reaching out to Fr. Anthony Cekada (another well-known sedevacantist priest in America), I received the following response to my question on whether a non-sedevacantist could omit Francis from the Canon of the Mass (in the typically blunt Fr. Cekada fashion):

“The rubrics do not allow this. If there is a pope, his name must be inserted where prescribed. If there is no Pope, the entire phrase is omitted. The idea of inserting something else is simply stupid.”10 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-10) (http://file:///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn12)

The same argument would have been made by every other “faction” in the Church: Sedevacantists, SSPX, indult, and conciliar.  All recognize that either Francis is Pope, and you must pray for him in the Canon, or he is not, and therefore you must omit his name.

Therefore, to omit the prayer for Francis, while simultaneously denying one is a sedevacantist, is either incoherent at best, or dissimulating at worst.

In 2007, Fr. Anthony Cekada wrote a lengthy article titled “The Grain of Incense: Sedevacantists and Una cuм Masses,”11 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-11)  (http://file:///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn13)which several years later was distilled into an abridged version titled “Should I Assist at a Mass that Names ‘Pope Francis’ in the Canon?”12 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-12) (http://file:///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn14)

The purpose of those articles was to explain the importance of the “una cuм” prayer to sedevacantists, and thereby exhort them NOT to attend any Mass which prays for the conciliar Popes.

Conversely, these arguments are exceptionally useful, by inversion, for explaining to Resistance clergy and laity the importance of maintaining the “una cuм” prayer, and shunning the Masses of any priest who refuses to pray Francis’ name in the Canon:

These examples from our sedevacantist adversaries, applied to the matter of Resistance priests omitting the “una cuм” highlight the absurdity of excising the prayer from the Canon of the Mass, while simultaneously denying they are sedevacantists (i.e., Doing so denies all the above, in addition to contradicting the teaching of the Church in Ex Quo.13 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-13)

I would ask them, along with Pope Pelagius I:

“How can you believe that you are not separated from communion with the universal church if you do not mention my name within the sacred mysteries, as the custom is?”14 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-14) (http://file:///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn16)


“Well, That is Between the Priest and God, Not Me”
Wrong.

The Holy Mass is a public act of worship, and those who actively participate in it unite their actions to the priest who offers the sacrifice, thereby expressing their acceptance of his position.

Fr. Cekada cites Merkelbach (i.e., The same Dominican moralist taught by the SSPX in its own seminaries, by the way) as teaching  that active religious participation:

“is rightly considered a sign of religious unity.” It constitutes “implicit approval of an exercise of worship.”15 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-15)

Fr. Cekada cites several additional Popes and theologians, all expressing the same opinion.

It is not possible, therefore, to discharge oneself from moral culpability from attending “non una cuм” Masses by implementing this fictitious distinction: Whatever mental reservation one might desire to create for oneself, his actions demonstrate his support and agreement with the priest’s act.16 (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/#easy-footnote-bottom-16) (http://file:///C:/Users/K04868/Desktop/Non%20Una%20cuм.doc#_edn18)

But there is also the problem of “insincerity” and communicatio in sacris:

If omission of Francis from the Canon implies schism for refusing to recognize him as head of the Church, then one is quite possibly running into the same preclusions that apply to prevent Mass attendance at Orthodox and other schismatic Masses.

In such cases (unless ignorance, extreme necessity, or double effect would excuse such a course of action), sanctifying grace from the sacrament would not be communicated, since, though it would be produced in the sacrament “ex opere operato,” it would fail to transmit “ex opere operantis,” because of the bad disposition of the subject (i.e., Who would be objectively and knowingly committing a grave sin, and therefore would not be in the state of grace to receive an increase of same).


Conclusion:
There is nothing “optional” in the matter of praying Pope Francis’ name in the Canon of the Mass.

Those few Resistance priests who, on the one hand deny being sedevacantists, and on the other reject Francis’ authority and jurisdiction, and refuse to mention his name in the Canon, are incoherent to say the least.  One must look upon their position with a certain degree of suspicion.  They are sedevacantists in fact, if not by intention, and seem to be in transit to a conscious recognition of that position (even if they deny it today).

As a friend wrote to me:

The ‘non una cuм’ position “resembles a kind of hideous misery of dogmatic sedevacantism, which makes it possible to present a less frightening face to souls disturbed by the current crisis of the church but which, in the end, draws them to the terrain of hard sedevacantism.”

I quite agree:

Do not be deceived, and let their pleas to “tolerance of opinion” fall upon deaf ears.

The Church has explained in her encyclicals (and rubrics) the necessity of praying for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass, and declared those who refuse to do so as severed from communion with the universal Church.

Moreover, the vast majority of approved theologians recognize the identity of the Pope to be a dogmatic fact, and therefore infallible (or at least theologically certain).

Finally, the theologians explain that the knowing laity may not exempt themselves from moral culpability (via mental reservation or practical considerations), as their active participation and public worship are joined to the intentions of the priest.

We must pray for the conversion of such priests, or insist upon their departure from the Resistance, and the laity must be told that it is not possible to attend their Mass venues.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2018, 10:32:34 AM
For whatever reason, this was omitted [formatting issue/error] from the section titled: "But We Do Accept Francis as Pope!"

"Then in the very next breath he continued to explain to me that:

-He rejects the authority of Francis;

-He rejects the jurisdiction of Francis;

-He refuses to say the name of Francis in the Canon...

PS: Matthew: If you can add that into the OP, it would be much appreciated
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2018, 10:41:19 AM
NB:

It has been 16 months since this article was originally published on SP.  

Reconsider this excerpt, and think about the case of Fr. Ringrose as you do:

Those few Resistance priests who, on the one hand deny being sedevacantists, and on the other reject Francis’ authority and jurisdiction, and refuse to mention his name in the Canon, are incoherent to say the least.  One must look upon their position with a certain degree of suspicion.  They are sedevacantists in fact, if not by intention, and seem to be in transit to a conscious recognition of that position (even if they deny it today).

As a friend wrote to me:

The ‘non una cuм’ position “resembles a kind of hideous misery of dogmatic sedevacantism, which makes it possible to present a less frightening face to souls disturbed by the current crisis of the church but which, in the end, draws them to the terrain of hard sedevacantism.”

I quite agree
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2018, 11:17:35 AM
NB: Just realized, in the section titled "But We Do Accept Francis as Pope!" a list of examples/arguments was also omitted for some reason:

After the words:

"Conversely, these arguments are exceptionally useful, by inversion, for explaining to Resistance clergy and laity the importance of maintaining the “una cuм” prayer, and shunning the Masses of any priest who refuses to pray Francis’ name in the Canon:..."

...followed the list.

Note that after several attempts, I am not able to get this list to show

Seems like CI formatting deleted anything with a number in front of it, and I am not even able to replace numbers with hyphens....frustrating.

Might just be best to read the original here: http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Marlelar on April 21, 2018, 11:23:48 AM
Yes, I think next time just a teaser paragraph and then a link to your original will save you a lot of frustration.

Thanks so much for all the work you put into your site.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Clemens Maria on April 21, 2018, 11:36:01 AM
It’s more of a sure thing that Jorge Bergoglio is a fake pope than that Ambrose Moran is a fake bishop.  Too bad you can’t see that.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Meg on April 21, 2018, 11:44:19 AM


But We Do Accept Francis as Pope!
One priest I recently corresponded with on this issue said to me, “Anyone who says that I am a sedevacantist is a liar!”

Then in the very next breath, he continued to explain to me that:


Is that position coherent? [Note: This is a dishonest ploy: These priests are sedeprivationists, which they would superficially distinguish from sedevacantists]

Can one who claims Francis has no authority, or jurisdiction, and whose name he refuses to pray in the Mass, avoid the label of “sedevacantist?”

No.

------------

Conclusion:
There is nothing “optional” in the matter of praying Pope Francis’ name in the Canon of the Mass.

Those few Resistance priests who, on the one hand deny being sedevacantists, and on the other reject Francis’ authority and jurisdiction, and refuse to mention his name in the Canon, are incoherent to say the least.  One must look upon their position with a certain degree of suspicion.  They are sedevacantists in fact, if not by intention, and seem to be in transit to a conscious recognition of that position (even if they deny it today).


Very good article. The above two quotes are what sums it up, IMO. 
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Centroamerica on April 21, 2018, 12:07:04 PM
Just like during the Great Schism, there is positive doubt regarding the identity of the current pope. Anyone who takes the matter of Bergoglio being pope or not being pope as dogmatic, arrogates to himself a power that he simply doesn’t have. There is sufficient case for positive doubt. The theory of loss/non-loss of papal office of formal and manifest heretics has been debated and the Church has allowed the debate for centuries without stepping in to pronounce either way. Those who carry this to the point of dogma accusing the other side of heresy or schism could not truly call themselves Traditional Catholics. Bishop Williamson himself has admitted that it is possible that Benedict XVI is pope and admitted this in his video in Canada with then Fr. Zendejas and Fr. Gruner present. The positive doubt is present and only a fool would deny it.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2018, 12:21:26 PM
Just like during the Great Schism, there is positive doubt regarding the identity of the current pope. Anyone who takes the matter of Bergoglio being pope or not being pope as dogmatic, arrogates to himself a power that he simply doesn’t have. There is sufficient case for positive doubt. The theory of loss/non-loss of papal office of formal and manifest heretics has been debated and the Church has allowed the debate for centuries without stepping in to pronounce either way. Those who carry this to the point of dogma accusing the other side of heresy or schism could not truly call themselves Traditional Catholics. Bishop Williamson himself has admitted that it is possible that Benedict XVI is pope and admitted this in his video in Canada with then Fr. Zendejas and Fr. Gruner present. The positive doubt is present and only a fool would deny it.

The example of the GWS is inapplicable:

1) Precisely because the Church was divided in assenting to the claims of three papal claimants, none of the claimants' "papacies" ever attained the status of dogmatic fact.

2) Conversely, precisely because the Church is unanimous in the recognition of Francis' papacy, his legitimacy is a dogmatic fact (and therefore theologically certain).

See Billot above:

"Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.  For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”'
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: manilavanilla on April 21, 2018, 12:54:50 PM
Slightly tedious article especially considering that Mr. Johnson is a self appointed theologian of the resistance.

The ways in which is is right are the following:
-Sedevacantists usually aren't long in trying to convert others to their point of view, and it is hard for them to stay "non-dogmatic".
- They often tend to be slippery in the way they do this and can cause trouble.

- Mr Johnson deserves praise for having finally had the courage to publish his articles here in his own name, rather than get someone else to do it.

Ways in which he is wrong:
- They are not as much as a threat as he makes them out to be. Sometimes there can be sedes who just don't cause trouble. I suspect that he is causing such a scene about this to disguise his own liberalism.


We should note that an equally big threat in the resistance, if not bigger,is those laity, and certain clerics, who seek to impose artificial structures on the resistance. They then act in the most arrogant manner pretending that those outside these structures are inferior in some way. Mark my words, my dear friends, these people are snakes in the grass. Canon law is already very demanding without having to insist that we HAVE to have everyone in such structures. This is a form of liberalism, with a tinge of communism IMHO.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: songbird on April 21, 2018, 01:34:18 PM
Is the New Order mess heretical or not?!  Anyone who says it, is heretical, IMO.  That is the fruits.  You will know them by their fruits!  Don't overlook the disgusting changes!  A insult to Our Lord!  

As catholics, we pray for the intentions of Christ the King, for the Church He instituted!  

When do you cut off the Mass as true Mass?  How do you see Ordination since 1968?  This pope you call pope, says the heretical mess.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 21, 2018, 01:37:25 PM
Quote
Ways in which he is wrong:
- They are not as much as a threat as he makes them out to be. 
The main problem with dogmatic sedevacantism, and the “una cuм” lie, is not the uncharity or divisiveness (as much of a problem as that is) it is that it leads to some people in the movement staying at home from mass.  And there is no greater sin, tragedy, and pain to God than when His people fail to honor Him on Sundays.  
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Centroamerica on April 21, 2018, 01:56:45 PM
The claim that the Church is unanimous is false. Completely false. Countless lay Catholics, priests and bishops consider Bergoglio doubtful at best. The most recent case is the retired bishop of Corpus Christi, Bishop Gracida. 
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 02:12:21 PM
The main problem with dogmatic sedevacantism, and the “una cuм” lie, is not the uncharity or divisiveness (as much of a problem as that is) it is that it leads to some people in the movement staying at home from mass.  And there is no greater sin, tragedy, and pain to God than when His people fail to honor Him on Sundays.  
Would you attend a non una cuм mass if it were the only mass available to you?  Or would you stay home?    
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 02:23:06 PM
The claim that the Church is unanimous is false. Completely false. Countless lay Catholics, priests and bishops consider Bergoglio doubtful at best. The most recent case is the retired bishop of Corpus Christi, Bishop Gracida.
Unless those that say it is unanimous don't consider those folks to be part of the Church.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Centroamerica on April 21, 2018, 02:40:30 PM
The example of the GWS is inapplicable:

1) Precisely because the Church was divided in assenting to the claims of three papal claimants, none of the claimants' "papacies" ever attained the status of dogmatic fact.
There was, at a moment prior to the Western Schism, one papal claimant recognized by all as the true pope. Just because later there were three, does not change it on the grounds Sean posits. 
The application of the GWS was to show that there were canonized saints who attended Masses where the wrong pope or no pope was mentioned in the canon. If one were to side with St. Robert Bellarmine in believing that a manifest, formal heretic loses office, they would still be Catholic. They might even be right. But a dogmatic sedeplenist would rather follow a Buddhist pope than admit that an opposing view could be right. 
The official position of the SSPX had always been that a formal heretic loses office of the papacy. Indeed, even Bishop Fellay has admitted that it may be possible to say one day that Bergoglio never was pope. 
If one were to compile a list of all the people who have doubted the post-conciliar popes on up to Bergoglio, it would be nearly every single Traditionalist priest and bishop (Fr. Gruner, Fr. Kramer, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Fellay, Canonist Fr. Hesse et. al.) on one side and Sean Johnson, Fr. Pfeiffer and the Fraternity of St. Peter on the other. 
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 02:53:13 PM
NB:

It has been 16 months since this article was originally published on SP.  

Reconsider this excerpt, and think about the case of Fr. Ringrose as you do:

Those few Resistance priests who, on the one hand deny being sedevacantists, and on the other reject Francis’ authority and jurisdiction, and refuse to mention his name in the Canon, are incoherent to say the least.  One must look upon their position with a certain degree of suspicion.  They are sedevacantists in fact, if not by intention, and seem to be in transit to a conscious recognition of that position (even if they deny it today).

As a friend wrote to me:

The ‘non una cuм’ position “resembles a kind of hideous misery of dogmatic sedevacantism, which makes it possible to present a less frightening face to souls disturbed by the current crisis of the church but which, in the end, draws them to the terrain of hard sedevacantism.”

I quite agree
I happen to agree as well.  Having said that, I would argue that there are a number of traditionalists who, although they include the name of Francis in the canon, don't act as if they truly believe he is the pope of the Catholic Church.  
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 03:03:24 PM
Just like during the Great Schism, there is positive doubt regarding the identity of the current pope. Anyone who takes the matter of Bergoglio being pope or not being pope as dogmatic, arrogates to himself a power that he simply doesn’t have. There is sufficient case for positive doubt. The theory of loss/non-loss of papal office of formal and manifest heretics has been debated and the Church has allowed the debate for centuries without stepping in to pronounce either way. Those who carry this to the point of dogma accusing the other side of heresy or schism could not truly call themselves Traditional Catholics. Bishop Williamson himself has admitted that it is possible that Benedict XVI is pope and admitted this in his video in Canada with then Fr. Zendejas and Fr. Gruner present. The positive doubt is present and only a fool would deny it.

THIS ^^^

And if you don't at least have a positive doubt, then you have no business being a Traditional Catholic, for you are a schismatic.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 21, 2018, 03:49:54 PM
Quote
Would you attend a non una cuм mass if it were the only mass available to you?  Or would you stay home?
Your question assumes we have a choice.  We do not.  We all must, under pain of sin, attend mass said by a valid priest, on all sundays/holydays.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2018, 03:50:15 PM
The claim that the Church is unanimous is false. Completely false. Countless lay Catholics, priests and bishops consider Bergoglio doubtful at best. The most recent case is the retired bishop of Corpus Christi, Bishop Gracida.
There are currently 1.3 BILLION Catholics in the Church.

I'm guessing there are approximately 40,000 sedevacantists on the planet +/- (and that might be a generous number).

That's 32,500 Catholics who accept Francis as Pope for every sedevacantist who denies it.

That comes to 0.0000307%

Pretend that's 32,500 grains of sugar vs 1 grain of sugar.

That would barely register as a trace, or perhaps not at all.

No, there is pretty much unanimity.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2018, 03:55:08 PM
There was, at a moment prior to the Western Schism, one papal claimant recognized by all as the true pope. Just because later there were three, does not change it on the grounds Sean posits.
The application of the GWS was to show that there were canonized saints who attended Masses where the wrong pope or no pope was mentioned in the canon. If one were to side with St. Robert Bellarmine in believing that a manifest, formal heretic loses office, they would still be Catholic. They might even be right. But a dogmatic sedeplenist would rather follow a Buddhist pope than admit that an opposing view could be right.
The official position of the SSPX had always been that a formal heretic loses office of the papacy. Indeed, even Bishop Fellay has admitted that it may be possible to say one day that Bergoglio never was pope.
If one were to compile a list of all the people who have doubted the post-conciliar popes on up to Bergoglio, it would be nearly every single Traditionalist priest and bishop (Fr. Gruner, Fr. Kramer, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Fellay, Canonist Fr. Hesse et. al.) on one side and Sean Johnson, Fr. Pfeiffer and the Fraternity of St. Peter on the other.

I see you are sinking into sedevacantism.

I will pray for you.

Please pray for me.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 04:18:23 PM
Your question assumes we have a choice.  We do not.  We all must, under pain of sin, attend mass said by a valid priest, on all sundays/holydays.
You avoided answering my question.  Would you attend a non una cuм mass if there was no other option?  Would you attend an Orthodox liturgy (since they do have valid priests) if there was no other option? Or how about a Novus Ordo mass assuming the priest was valid?
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 21, 2018, 04:30:05 PM

Quote
You avoided answering my question.  Would you attend a non una cuм mass if there was no other option?  Would you attend an Orthodox liturgy (since they do have valid priests) if there was no other option?
I didn't avoid the question, I answered generally.  Non-una cuм/ una-cuм...I don't care.  If the priest is valid and he says a valid TLM, I would attend.  I don't think we can attend the Orthodox...don't know much about it.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 04:35:26 PM
I didn't avoid the question, I answered generally.  Non-una cuм/ una-cuм...I don't care.  If the priest is valid and he says a valid TLM, I would attend.  I don't think we can attend the Orthodox...don't know much about it.
OK, fair enough...at least you are consistent.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 04:37:23 PM
There are currently 1.3 BILLION Catholics in the Church.

I'm guessing there are approximately 40,000 sedevacantists on the planet +/- (and that might be a generous number).

That's 32,500 Catholics who accept Francis as Pope for every sedevacantist who denies it.

That comes to 0.0000307%

Pretend that's 32,500 grains of sugar vs 1 grain of sugar.

That would barely register as a trace, or perhaps not at all.

No, there is pretty much unanimity.
Funny, I always thought the definition of unanimity meant agreement among all the people of a group....as in 100%.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 04:38:50 PM
I see you are sinking into sedevacantism.

I will pray for you.

Please pray for me.
Anything, but sedevacantism! :jumping2:
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2018, 04:48:53 PM
Funny, I always thought the definition of unanimity meant agreement among all the people of a group....as in 100%.

When theologians speak of "unanimity," they are considering moral unanimity, not mathematical unanimity.

This is because the latter can never be proven or demonstrated, while the former is easily ascertainable (e.g., by observing the percentage referenced in the previous post).
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 04:54:56 PM
There are currently 1.3 BILLION Catholics in the Church.

I'm guessing there are approximately 40,000 sedevacantists on the planet +/- (and that might be a generous number).

That's 32,500 Catholics who accept Francis as Pope for every sedevacantist who denies it.

That comes to 0.0000307%

Pretend that's 32,500 grains of sugar vs 1 grain of sugar.

That would barely register as a trace, or perhaps not at all.

No, there is pretty much unanimity.

Those same numbers, with only a fractional uptick, accept the teachings of Vatican II.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 05:08:36 PM
Anything, but sedevacantism! :jumping2:

Yeah, they would rather believe that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church have defected and become gravely corrupted than entertain the possibility that the V2 papal claimants are illegitimate.  Defend the honor of Bergoglio while dishonoring the Church.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2018, 05:15:26 PM
Those same numbers accept the teachings of Vatican II.

I see the point you are making, but it is slightly out of place:

The issue in question is whether a unanimous recognition of Francis as Pope exists (i.e., an argument of fact), which would trigger Billot's conclusion.

It clearly does, since 99.9999693% recognize his papacy.

That 0.0000307% of those calling themselves Catholic dispute this in no way suffices to disqualify a conclusion of unanimity, since the unanimity being spoken of is moral unanimity, not mathematical unanimity.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 05:22:38 PM
I see the point you are making, but it is slightly out of place:

The issue in question is whether a unanimous recognition of Francis as Pope exists, which would trigger Billot's conclusion.

Billot's conclusion is derived from the indefectibility of the Ecclesia Credens, that the Church could not adhere to a false rule of faith.  So the same principle, indefectibility of the Ecclesia Credens, would apply to the acceptance by these 1+ billion "Catholics" of all the V2 errors.  So both brands of Traditional Catholicism labor with the SAME problem in the end.  Billot didn't really consider scenarios such as the Arian crisis, where an Arian pope would have been welcomed and accepted by the Arian majority.  Similarly, the 1+ billion "Catholics" who have gone modernist have no problem recognizing a modernist Pope.


Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 05:26:09 PM
I see you are sinking into sedevacantism.

I will pray for you.

Please pray for me.

Oh, I don't know.  There are worse things than sedevacantism.  Sedevacantism is at least based in the application of a conclusion forwarded by a Doctor of the Church ... even if it's debated.  You could argue against his conclusion or at least the application of it to today, but you can't say that it's condemned or inherently non-Catholic.  

R&R on the other hand, the kind which insists that these men MUST be popes, posits a defection of the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline ... which no theologian has EVER held.  Find ONE THEOLOGIAN who has ever taught or believed that the Universal Church could put into use a Rite of Mass that offends God.  In fact, theologians would have universally condemned the proposition as unquestionably heretical.

So which is worse?
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 05:31:25 PM
Sean, by the Novus Ordo's OWN POLLING DATA, 95%+ of these 1+ billion have lost the faith ... rejecting one Catholic dogma or another.  So how is acceptance by such a mass of apostasy a sign of the Church's infallible discernment regarding the matter of legitimacy?

Polls starting in the 1990s indicated that 70%+ of Novus Ordo "Catholics" don't believe in the real presence.  Of those 30% who remain Catholic on this point, probably another 75% don't believe in papal infallibility or don't believe that birth control is wrong or reject one or another Church dogma.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 05:32:40 PM
I see the point you are making, but it is slightly out of place:

The issue in question is whether a unanimous recognition of Francis as Pope exists (i.e., an argument of fact), which would trigger Billot's conclusion.

It clearly does, since 99.9999693% recognize his papacy.

That 0.0000307% of those calling themselves Catholic dispute this in no way suffices to disqualify a conclusion of unanimity, since the unanimity being spoken of is moral unanimity, not mathematical unanimity.
And how many of the 99.9999693% are actually Catholic?  Not many, now are there?
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 05:36:48 PM
And I'll add that maybe 10% of "sedeplenist" Traditional Catholics would aver that they believe WITH THE CERTAINTY OF FAITH that Bergoglio is Pope.  I've heard every SSPX bishop entertain the possibility that they may not be legitimate ... not to mention countless priests and faithful.  Since papal legitimacy is a dogmatic fact, it MUST BE KNOWN WITH THE CERTAINTY OF FAITH OR IT'S NOT KNOWN AT ALL.  Papa dubius papa nullus.  Ask any R&R/sedeplenist Trad if they would swear before God that they are as certain Bergoglio is pope as they are that Our Lady was conceived without Original Sin ... and you would find VERY FEW TAKERS.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 05:37:22 PM
Sean, by the Novus Ordo's OWN POLLING DATA, 95%+ of these 1+ billion have lost the faith ... rejecting one Catholic dogma or another.  So how is acceptance by such a mass of apostasy a sign of the Church's infallible discernment regarding the matter of legitimacy?

Polls starting in the 1990s indicated that 70%+ of Novus Ordo "Catholics" don't believe in the real presence.  Of those 30% who remain Catholic on this point, probably another 75% don't believe in papal infallibility or don't believe that birth control is wrong or reject one or another Church dogma.
Yeah, so much for "moral" unanimity.   ::)
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 05:42:00 PM
Yeah, so much for "moral" unanimity.   ::)

Yep.  This is the HUGE HOLE in the application of the "Universal Acceptance" principle to the modern crisis.  If I were living at the time of Pius XII, I would be a heretic (as one high-ranking theologian writing during his reign wrote) for doubting his legitimacy.  But, today, who in their right Catholic mind doesn't question at one time or another who these scoundrels are who are destroying the faith?  +Lefebvre constantly questioned this in public.  But during the time of peaceful acceptance, to question the legitimacy of a pope is no less unthinkable than if Lefebvre had been questioning whether there are Three Divine Persons in One God.  In fact, we have some IN THE NOVUS ORDO starting to question whether Bergoglio is a heretic and the See might be vacant.

And, just as questioning the dogma of the Holy Trinity is not different than openly denying it, so too questioning whether these men are truly legitimate Catholic popes (as +Lefebvre and all the SSPX bishops have at one point or another) is no different than being sedevacantist.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Samuel on April 21, 2018, 05:42:42 PM
Slightly tedious article especially considering that Mr. Johnson is a self appointed theologian of the resistance.

The ways in which is is right are the following:
-Sedevacantists usually aren't long in trying to convert others to their point of view, and it is hard for them to stay "non-dogmatic".
- They often tend to be slippery in the way they do this and can cause trouble.

- Mr Johnson deserves praise for having finally had the courage to publish his articles here in his own name, rather than get someone else to do it.

Ways in which he is wrong:
- They are not as much as a threat as he makes them out to be. Sometimes there can be sedes who just don't cause trouble. I suspect that he is causing such a scene about this to disguise his own liberalism.


We should note that an equally big threat in the resistance, if not bigger,is those laity, and certain clerics, who seek to impose artificial structures on the resistance. They then act in the most arrogant manner pretending that those outside these structures are inferior in some way. Mark my words, my dear friends, these people are snakes in the grass. Canon law is already very demanding without having to insist that we HAVE to have everyone in such structures. This is a form of liberalism, with a tinge of communism IMHO.

"Slightly tedious comment", especially considering that yet another new member jumps straight in with fostering enmities and divisions within the Resistance.

1. Every single Traditional Catholic is a self appointed theologian, and must be so in order to remain Traditional. If some people put more effort in this than others, is that something we should be deriding them for?

2. Mr Johnson has already explained his reason for the time he did not post here under his own name, and that reason had nothing to do with a lack of courage, on the contrary. By the way, where's your courage in anonymously attacking those who unlike you have the courage and integrity to speak in their own name?

3. The history of the SSPX is full of troubles caused by two seemingly opposite sides, based on the same underlying error: those who left to join the Conciliar Church, and those who left to become sedevacantists. Your comments about sedes not being "as much a threat" is just plain ignorant. You should learn to think before you speak.

4. Your accusations about Mr Johnson's "disguising his own liberalism" is a gratuitous accusation and further proof of your malice.

You should take a lesson from Mr Johnson and learn to research the issues you like to comment on, to think before you speak, and to speak like a Catholic. You are the type of person that sows divisions, spreads falsehoods, repulses honest and serious Catholics and is able to ruin a forum.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2018, 05:43:10 PM
Sean, by the Novus Ordo's OWN POLLING DATA, 95%+ of these 1+ billion have lost the faith ... rejecting one Catholic dogma or another.  So how is acceptance by such a mass of apostasy a sign of the Church's infallible discernment regarding the matter of legitimacy?

Polls starting in the 1990s indicated that 70%+ of Novus Ordo "Catholics" don't believe int he real presence.  Of those 30% who remain Catholic on this point, probably another 75% don't believe in papal infallibility or don't believe that birth control is wrong or reject one or another Church dogma.

Ladislaus-

You want to defend sedevacantism, and there is nothing that I can say that is going to penetrate.

I know this in advance.

This tells me I am wasting my time addressing you, so I will make but one more response before tuning out (which is really more for the rest of the forum, than for yourself), and watching this thread run to another 100+ pages:

Keep in mind that the words which follow are Billot's, not mine:

The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself

Now, I understand that is fatal to sedevcantism, and you are compelled to find some means of explaining it away, or abandon sedevacantism.

But for the few objective readers who may be following, I leave this there for them as an anchor to hang on to, noting in closing that this opinion of Billot is not unique to him, but is in fact the most common opinion of the theologians who have addressed the issue, for the simple reason that if the Church unanimously adhered to a false Pope, the Church would have defected, and that in turn (by directly contradicting a defined dogma) would prove the Catholic religion utterly false.

I leave you to your ruminations.

Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Samuel on April 21, 2018, 05:45:03 PM
Anything, but sedevacantism! :jumping2:
Anything but error! :jumping2:
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Samuel on April 21, 2018, 05:47:35 PM
Yeah, they would rather believe that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church have defected and become gravely corrupted than entertain the possibility that the V2 papal claimants are illegitimate.  Defend the honor of Bergoglio while dishonoring the Church.

Yeah, they would rather think that the Church could morph into a pope-less Church than to think that the pope can err.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 05:48:25 PM
Sean, the truly objective readers (not the dogmatic sedeplenists, anti-sedevacantists like yourself) will see that "Universal Church" does not include the large percentage of Novus Ordites who do not hold nor profess the Catholic Faith.  Therefore, your so-called moral unanimity defense for claiming that the heretic currently in the Chair of Peter has to be legitimate doesn't hold any water.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 05:50:37 PM
Keep in mind that the words which follow are Billot's, not mine:

The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself


No, you won't try to directly refute me because you CAN'T.  I have already explained how Billot's principle does not apply to the present crisis because 95% of these Conciliarists ARE NOT EVEN CATHOLIC.  That would be like the 90%+ Arians accepting an Arian pope.

Not to mention, as I have also pointed out, ALL of the SSPX bishops have at one point or another questioned the legitimacy of the V2 Popes.  That's like publicly questioning the Holy Trinity (since papal legitimacy is classified as a DOGMATIC FACT).  No different than actually denying it.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Samuel on April 21, 2018, 05:51:25 PM
And how many of the 99.9999693% are actually Catholic?  Not many, now are there?

All of them are members of the Catholic Church, while the "few" (Traditional) consider the "many" (Conciliar) bad Catholics and vice versa.

Billot's argument was based on "Catholics", not on "good Catholics".
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 05:51:36 PM
Yeah, they would rather think that the Church could morph into a pope-less Church than to think that the pope can err.
No, you prefer to believe that the indefectible Catholic Church has had popes that teach error to the Universal church for over 50 years.  Big difference.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Samuel on April 21, 2018, 05:53:13 PM
Ladislaus-

You want to defend sedevacantism, and there is nothing that I can say that is going to penetrate.

I know this in advance.

This tells me I am wasting my time addressing you, so I will make but one more response before tuning out (which is really more for the rest of the forum, than for yourself), and watching this thread run to another 100+ pages:

Keep in mind that the words which follow are Billot's, not mine:

The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself

Now, I understand that is fatal to sedevcantism, and you are compelled to find some means of explaining it away, or abandon sedevacantism.

But for the few objective readers who may be following, I leave this there for them as an anchor to hang on to, noting in closing that this opinion of Billot is not unique to him, but is in fact the most common opinion of the theologians who have addressed the issue, for the simple reason that if the Church unanimously adhered to a false Pope, the Church would have defected, and that in turn (by directly contradicting a defined dogma) would prove the Catholic religion utterly false.

I leave you to your ruminations.

Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson

Sean, don't waste your time on Ladislaus. Others have tried it and failed. See Provers 29:9.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 05:55:50 PM
All of them are members of the Catholic Church, while the "few" (Traditional) consider the "many" (Conciliar) bad Catholics and vice versa.

Billot's argument was based on "Catholics", not on "good Catholics".
So you believe that those who do not hold the Catholic Faith whole and entire are members of the Catholic Church?
Oh wait, that would explain why you think Bergoglio is Catholic and still pope too.
Nevermind.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 05:56:59 PM
No, you won't try to directly refute me because you CAN'T.  I have already explained how Billot's principle does not apply to the present crisis because 95% of these Conciliarists ARE NOT EVEN CATHOLIC.  That would be like the 90%+ Arians accepting an Arian pope.

Not to mention, as I have also pointed out, ALL of the SSPX bishops have at one point or another questioned the legitimacy of the V2 Popes.  That's like publicly questioning the Holy Trinity (since papal legitimacy is classified as a DOGMATIC FACT).  No different than actually denying it.
Exactly.  
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 05:58:12 PM
You want to defend sedevacantism, and there is nothing that I can say that is going to penetrate.

And, no, I am not interested in defending sedevacantism.  There are differing theories about what happens to a heretical pope.

What I AM interested in doing is to defend the Catholic Magisterium and the indefectibility thereof, along with the indefectibility of the Church's Universal Discipline ... and the general Holiness of the Church.  Unlike yourself, evidently, I believe in one HOLY Catholic Church.  Does that expression ring a bell?
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 05:59:58 PM
All of them are members of the Catholic Church, while the "few" (Traditional) consider the "many" (Conciliar) bad Catholics and vice versa.

Billot's argument was based on "Catholics", not on "good Catholics".

No they're not.  Heresy excludes from membership in the Church.  Just ask St. Robert Bellarmine ... whose opinions you seem to consider of no account.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 06:00:41 PM
Sean, don't waste your time on Ladislaus. Others have tried it and failed. See Provers 29:9.

Yeah, they fail miserably in refuting my arguments.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Samuel on April 21, 2018, 06:01:33 PM
Sean, the truly objective readers (not the dogmatic sedeplenists, anti-sedevacantists like yourself) will see that "Universal Church" does not include the large percentage of Novus Ordites who do not hold nor profess the Catholic Faith.  Therefore, your so-called moral unanimity defense for claiming that the heretic currently in the Chair of Peter has to be legitimate doesn't hold any water.

This is just absolute nonsense.

Do you really like to pretend that the vast majority of Catholics in the 50's and 60's did not "profess the Catholic Faith"? And that therefore cardinal Billot's argument did not apply?

Where were you back then? And where were the other 0.0000000001% of "good Catholics" when pope Paul VI was elected and accepted by all those "non professing" Catholics?
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 06:04:56 PM
This is just absolute nonsense.

Do you really like to pretend that the vast majority of Catholics in the 50's and 60's did not "profess the Catholic Faith"? And that therefore cardinal Billot's argument did not apply?

Where were you back then? And where were the other 0.0000000001% of "good Catholics" when pope Paul VI was elected and accepted by all those "non professing" Catholics?
Wait, we're talking about Paul VI now?  I actually believe his election was probably valid.  I also believe he lost the papacy when he promulgated and taught the false religion of Vatican II to the Universal Church.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 06:06:15 PM
I actually believe his election was probably valid.

I don't.  I think that Siri still held claim to the Holy See.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 06:07:10 PM
Wheee....another anti-sedevacantist thread!    :jumping2:

Let's see how many pages this will go!   :fryingpan:
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 06:07:23 PM
Do you really like to pretend that the vast majority of Catholics in the 50's and 60's did not "profess the Catholic Faith"? And that therefore cardinal Billot's argument did not apply?

Very few of them believed in the dogma EENS and were not religious indifferentists ... just ask Father Feeney.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 06:08:06 PM
I don't.  I think that Siri still held claim to the Holy See.
I guess that's always a possibility.  Just not enough evidence for me.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 06:09:16 PM
So, of these Resistance priests "plural" about whom you write, can you name names besides Father Ringrose ... who do not put Francis' name in the Canon?
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 06:11:44 PM
Oh noes!  The down thumbs !     :laugh2:
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 06:11:50 PM
I guess that's always a possibility.  Just not enough evidence for me.

As with all these things, we're mostly dealing with probabilities at this time ... until the Church resolves this crisis once and for all, and I consider it extremely probable ... even if there isn't the proverbial smoking gun evidence.  If I had to bet my life savings (well, even if they were rather substantial) about whether or not the Siri Thesis is true, I would have to side in its favor.

Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 06:12:44 PM
Oh noes!  The down thumbs !     :laugh2:

I've had a number of these clowns running around downthumbing every post of mine for a while now.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 21, 2018, 06:14:52 PM
Are you going to spread your stupid comments all over this thread too now?

Matthew, as long as fools like Ladislaus are allowed to spread their trash all over your forum I see no reason for me to remain. It makes discussions tiresome and profitless, and it causes your forum to become like all the other sedevacantist forums.
Oh poor Samuel.  
And  :laugh1: at this forum being like other sedevacantist forums. 
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 21, 2018, 06:29:02 PM
Are you going to spread your stupid comments all over this thread too now?

Matthew, as long as fools like Ladislaus are allowed to spread their trash all over your forum I see no reason for me to remain. It makes discussions tiresome and profitless, and it causes your forum to become like all the other sedevacantist forums.

Oh, sure, the teaching of nearly all theologians (and Pius XII) that heresy excludes from membership in the Church is now "stupid comments".

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: TKGS on April 21, 2018, 07:21:13 PM
Billot's argument was based on "Catholics", not on "good Catholics".
I thought "Catholics" were the people who hold the Catholic faith.  I thought "good Catholics" were only those Catholics who hold that Catholic Faith who are in a state of grace while "bad Catholics" were those who hold the Catholic Faith but fell into mortal sin.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 21, 2018, 07:48:34 PM
I wish I could do a "fill in the blank" poll of sedes and ask the following questions:
1.  Was John XXIII a pope?  If not, was he ever pope?  If yes, when did he lose his papacy?  Why did he lose his papacy?
2.  Was Paul VI...
3.  Was JPI...
4.  Was JPII...
5.  Was Benedict...
6.  Was Francis...

If I polled 1,000 sedes, I'd get 1,000 different answers.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: TKGS on April 21, 2018, 07:53:44 PM
No.  You wouldn't get 1,000 different answers.  You may get 3 sets of answers at most.  Sedevacantists are unanimous on #3 through #6.  There are differences of opinion on #1 and #2.  That is it.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Matthew on April 21, 2018, 08:20:01 PM
Really? John Paul I even? The fact that he was killed off suggests he was not a villain...
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: TKGS on April 21, 2018, 08:56:15 PM
Really? John Paul I even? The fact that he was killed off suggests he was not a villain...
Killed?  I actually think that his brother's explanation that he ran out of his medications (he was always a sickly individual since childhood) and didn't go through the hassle of getting them renewed in all the excitement as to why he died so soon is likely the truth. 
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Centroamerica on April 21, 2018, 09:04:49 PM
There are currently 1.3 BILLION Catholics in the Church.

I'm guessing there are approximately 40,000 sedevacantists on the planet +/- (and that might be a generous number).

That's 32,500 Catholics who accept Francis as Pope for every sedevacantist who denies it.

That comes to 0.0000307%

Pretend that's 32,500 grains of sugar vs 1 grain of sugar.

That would barely register as a trace, or perhaps not at all.

No, there is pretty much unanimity.
But there isn't unanimity. Just because you come up with some number like 3.07×10−5 doesn't mean a hill of beans. The majority doesn't make the truth. It is the truth that should make the majority.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Centroamerica on April 21, 2018, 09:14:01 PM
I see you are sinking into sedevacantism.

I will pray for you.

Please pray for me.

I'm not sinking into sede vacantism. I admit that it is a possibility and a valid Catholic opinion. There is at least one Doctor of the Church and many theologians and/or saints who agreed that a manifest, formal heretic would lose office and cease to be pope. It is a possibility. I have no authority to declare it or impose it on anyone. But I do acknowledge it as a true Catholic position.

It would be irrational to hold any other position. Until the Church speaks, you can't impose on other Catholics that Bergoglio is a pope or condemn them for doubting that (just like you couldn't impose on God-fearing Catholics that the Novus Ordo gives 'good fruit').
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Centroamerica on April 21, 2018, 09:24:19 PM
I don't.  I think that Siri still held claim to the Holy See.
I could see both hypotheses as probable. The Siri argument has more weight to it than at first glimpse. But it seems rational that Paul IV was validly elected pope. Not sure. He's not pope now. That's all I know.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Clemens Maria on April 21, 2018, 10:46:14 PM
Those same numbers, with only a fractional uptick, accept the teachings of Vatican II.
Right, so basically what he’s saying is that there is unanimity among Novus Ordo High-High-Anglicans that Frank is their pope and that they would rather have a fake pope than be Catholic.  They would rather be in communion with heretics than admit that sedes were right.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Clemens Maria on April 21, 2018, 10:57:43 PM

I leave you to your ruminations.

Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson
All bow to the Grand Poobah Sean!
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Cantarella on April 21, 2018, 11:20:02 PM
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18402717_1333964920025890_6112884557177480394_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=35c9cd7da85874f1b5964259b1326e16&oe=5B6E7518)
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 22, 2018, 01:02:37 AM
Killed?  I actually think that his brother's explanation that he ran out of his medications (he was always a sickly individual since childhood) and didn't go through the hassle of getting them renewed in all the excitement as to why he died so soon is likely the truth.
.
Hmmmm....    :furtive:
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 22, 2018, 06:13:05 AM
Really? John Paul I even? The fact that he was killed off suggests he was not a villain...

Have you ever looked into him as a Bishop?  He was about as modernist as they came.  So he rubbed some of the Vatican Bank mafioso the wrong way.  Does that make him a potential new St. Pius X?
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 22, 2018, 06:14:27 AM
I could see both hypotheses as probable. The Siri argument has more weight to it than at first glimpse. But it seems rational that Paul IV was validly elected pope. Not sure. He's not pope now. That's all I know.

Unless you believe the guy here who says that Paul VI is still alive.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 22, 2018, 06:37:13 AM
Right, so basically what he’s saying is that there is unanimity among Novus Ordo High-High-Anglicans that Frank is their pope and that they would rather have a fake pope than be Catholic.  They would rather be in communion with heretics than admit that sedes were right.
A slight change to your post:
Right, so basically what he’s saying is that there is unanimity among Novus Ordo High-High-Anglicans and every other stripe of Novus Ordo Protestantism that Frank is their pope and that they would rather have a fake pope than be Catholic.  They would rather be in communion with heretics than admit that sedes were right.

Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: hismajesty on April 22, 2018, 07:20:43 AM
https://imgflip.com/i/28v4nv

(https://i.imgflip.com/28v4nv.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/28v4nv)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 22, 2018, 07:25:52 AM
https://imgflip.com/i/28v4nv

(https://i.imgflip.com/28v4nv.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/28v4nv)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
:jester:
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: forlorn on April 22, 2018, 10:27:40 AM
There are currently 1.3 BILLION Catholics in the Church.

I'm guessing there are approximately 40,000 sedevacantists on the planet +/- (and that might be a generous number).

That's 32,500 Catholics who accept Francis as Pope for every sedevacantist who denies it.

That comes to 0.0000307%

Pretend that's 32,500 grains of sugar vs 1 grain of sugar.

That would barely register as a trace, or perhaps not at all.

No, there is pretty much unanimity.
Most of those Catholics aren't even Catholic by Vatican 2 standards. If you look at national surveys and compare the percentage who are "Catholic" to the percentage who "believe in a deity", generally the latter is far smaller than the former in Catholic countries. What this means is that a very large percentage of "Catholics" just call themselves that because they were baptised and see it as part of their identity, but they don't even believe in God.

And then if you look at mass attendance rates, most of the ones who do believe in God never attend mass. If you look at Catholic views on abortion, fornication, etc. you'll find denial of basic Catholic dogma even by mass-goers.

There may be 1.3 Billion who call themselves Catholic on earth, but there are probably only a few million who are actually Catholic even by Vatican 2 modernist standards.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 22, 2018, 11:10:30 AM
2Vermont,
If the only mass available was an una cuм, would you go?  If not, how do you give yourself a dispensation from the 3rd Commandment?
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 22, 2018, 05:58:15 PM
2Vermont,
If the only mass available was an una cuм, would you go?  If not, how do you give yourself a dispensation from the 3rd Commandment?
The only mass available to me is una cuм...the Novus Ordo and I don't attend.  In fact, I'm pretty sure all traditionalists (none sede and sede alike) wouldn't/don't go in that same set of circuмstances. How do any traditionalists who do not go to the Novus Ordo get a dispensation from the 3rd Commandment? 
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 22, 2018, 07:58:50 PM
They would rather be in communion with heretics than admit that sedes were right.

At the end of the day, I could hardly care less about being right or about being wrong.  I just want to be Catholic and to defend the honor of Holy Mother Church.  Whether Bergoglio, speaking personally, is Pope or is not Pope or is a Reptilian Space Alien or a Holographic Projection, I could hardly care LESS.  So long as the honor of the Church is upheld and defended.

And my crusade is against people who claim that the HOLY Catholic Church can become corrupt in her Magisterium and Universal Discipline.  If those two become corrupt, then the Church as a whole is corrupt and the Church is meaningless and the Church is worthless.  That makes the Church an OBSTACLE to salvation, something from which we must REMOVE ourselves in order to be saved rather than the other way around.  Absit.  I find this absolutely repugnant and I find it horrifying that Catholics could keep saying such things.  I would rather attend Clown Masses and hold hands while singing Kumbaya than to think this of the Holy Catholic Church.

I agree with the Dimond Brothers that this Conciliar Church is in fact the Whore of Babylon, drunk with the blood of the martyrs, from which the faithful are enjoined to remove themselves.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Cantarella on April 23, 2018, 12:42:12 AM
I think we can all agree that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a most sacred action. It is the only way on earth we can truly possess Our Lord Jesus Christ. If one holds the Pope in true contempt and thinks of him as a heretic outside the Church and a true enemy of the Faith, then naming him in the canon would seem as a stain (at the very least) to the sacredness of the Liturgy. Mons. Des Lauriers thought of it as that, a stain. It is a contradictory position, because what we would be saying in the setting of the Holy Sacrifice is that we are una cuм...in union with a heretic and under his authority.

It does not make sense, unless one fully recognizes the Pope of Rome as such, this is, the true Vicar of Christ on earth and remains in full communion with him with a good Roman Catholic submissive disposition. Both Masses non una cuм and una cuм are, I think, valid, but I don't believe the latter is reasonable for R&R priests, in a particular, when including the name of the "heretic" is quite meaningless. We are saying at least externally that our souls are in union with an enemy of the Faith. There seems to be just something wrong about that.

Faith cannot contradict reason.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Cantarella on April 23, 2018, 01:14:55 AM
At the end of the day, I could hardly care less about being right or about being wrong.  I just want to be Catholic and to defend the honor of Holy Mother Church.  Whether Bergoglio, speaking personally, is Pope or is not Pope or is a Reptilian Space Alien or a Holographic Projection, I could hardly care LESS.  So long as the honor of the Church is upheld and defended.

And my crusade is against people who claim that the HOLY Catholic Church can become corrupt in her Magisterium and Universal Discipline.  If those two become corrupt, then the Church as a whole is corrupt and the Church is meaningless and the Church is worthless.  That makes the Church an OBSTACLE to salvation, something from which we must REMOVE ourselves in order to be saved rather than the other way around.  Absit.  I find this absolutely repugnant and I find it horrifying that Catholics could keep saying such things.  I would rather attend Clown Masses and hold hands while singing Kumbaya than to think this of the Holy Catholic Church.

Well said  :applause:
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Croix de Fer on April 23, 2018, 04:31:49 AM
The only mass available to me is una cuм...the Novus Ordo and I don't attend.
Correct the sentence structure. What exactly are you saying here?

Una cuм doesn't nullify the Catholicity of Tridentine Mass and the Sacrament at (neo) SSPX chapels. An una cuм Tridentine Catholic Mass is still Catholic, therefore, if it's within your proximity, and it's the only Mass available to you, you're obligated to assist in fulfillment of the 3rd Commandment.


Quote
2Vermont says:
How do any traditionalists who do not go to the Novus Ordo get a dispensation from the 3rd Commandment?
The Novus Ordo isn't a Catholic Mass. Catholics are obligated to assist only the Catholic Mass, and if it's not available to them, the dispensation is granted, ipso facto, due to their circuмstance.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 23, 2018, 06:50:00 AM
Correct the sentence structure. What exactly are you saying here?

Una cuм doesn't nullify the Catholicity of Tridentine Mass and the Sacrament at (neo) SSPX chapels. An una cuм Tridentine Catholic Mass is still Catholic, therefore, if it's within your proximity, and it's the only Mass available to you, you're obligated to assist in fulfillment of the 3rd Commandment.

The Novus Ordo isn't a Catholic Mass. Catholics are obligated to assist only the Catholic Mass, and if it's not available to them, the dispensation is granted, ipso facto, due to their circuмstance.
The only mass available to me (on a weekly basis) is the Novus Ordo.  I don't attend it.
As for it not being a Catholic mass, I agree.  However, according to the men who most traditionalists call(ed) "pope", it is a Catholic mass promulgated by the Catholic Church.    
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 09:00:21 AM
Quote
The only mass available to me is una cuм
So you attend the una cuм or not?  I'm sorry, but it's not clear to me.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 23, 2018, 09:45:53 AM
Correct the sentence structure. What exactly are you saying here?

Una cuм doesn't nullify the Catholicity of Tridentine Mass and the Sacrament at (neo) SSPX chapels. An una cuм Tridentine Catholic Mass is still Catholic, therefore, if it's within your proximity, and it's the only Mass available to you, you're obligated to assist in fulfillment of the 3rd Commandment.

I agree with this.  Furthermore, if there's a traditional Eastern Rite Mass (e.g. not something like the Novus Ordized Maronite Liturgy), one must assist at that.  I've even attended a Motu Mass ... when travelling ... offered by a priest whose orders were unknown to me.  I just did not receive Communion.  Now, the dogmatic Sedevacantists would argue that one cannot be in Communion with heretics, even if the Rite itself is Catholic ... e.g. such as going to an Orthodox church with Traditional Eastern Liturgy.  But I do not see it as the same thing, since the Orthodox do not profess Catholicism, whereas the Motu folks do.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 23, 2018, 10:17:40 AM
So you attend the una cuм or not?  I'm sorry, but it's not clear to me.
Maybe because you're not really asking me what you want to ask me..which I suspect is:  would I attend una cuм?    I don't attend una cuм and I prefer non una cuм.  Having said that I have no other una cuм options other than the Novus Ordo.
As for dispensations, none of us have dispensations from not attending the Novus Ordo ... ESPECIALLY if one believes Francis and his predecessors are true Catholic popes.  If we are all honest here, we all have made private judgments and have acted accordingly.  
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 11:45:51 AM
Quote
As for dispensations, none of us have dispensations from not attending the Novus Ordo
The Novus Ordo is not required to be attended under pain of sin.  Quo Primum requires attendance at the TLM under pain of sin.  It's pretty easy.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: TKGS on April 23, 2018, 11:54:22 AM
The Novus Ordo is not required to be attended under pain of sin.  Quo Primum requires attendance at the TLM under pain of sin.  It's pretty easy.
Does it?  Could you quote that passage?  I thought it merely stated that no priest could be compelled to say another rite.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Centroamerica on April 23, 2018, 12:19:47 PM

I can’t agree with this at all. If you are not sure enough to receive Holy Communion then you shouldn’t be at the Mass. The only reason I could see for not receiving Holy Communion would be if for fear of receiving a host dubiously consecrated in the New Mass, but I would never attend a Mass that is held in the same place as a Novus Ordo on principle. 
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Croix de Fer on April 23, 2018, 12:20:10 PM
As for dispensations, none of us have dispensations from not attending the Novus Ordo ... ESPECIALLY if one believes Francis and his predecessors are true Catholic popes.  If we are all honest here, we all have made private judgments and have acted accordingly.  

No dispensation is needed for avoiding the Novus Ordo because it's not Catholic. It doesn't matter if there are trads who believe Frank is the pope. They still don't need a dispensation to avoid a non-Catholic service that is the Novus Ordo Missae.

You've been told this a number of times, now.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: forlorn on April 23, 2018, 12:21:37 PM
The Novus Ordo is not required to be attended under pain of sin.  Quo Primum requires attendance at the TLM under pain of sin.  It's pretty easy.
For many years, most Priests were barred from celebrating the Latin Mass and there are still restrictions in place regarding it. Why would a true Pope deny his flock the true Mass they must attend under pain of mortal sin? Why would he deceive them into thinking they did not need to attend the Latin Mass?
Basically, your theory posits that V2 Popes were at the same time valid Popes but also formal heretics and very evil people intending to deceive Catholics worldwide. Does it not start to push the limits of the Indefectibility of the Church 
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 12:22:15 PM
Ask and ye shall receive...


We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, (In other words, the whole church)

and We order them in virtue of holy obedience (sin of disobedience is in play here)

to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us (Pope orders the Church to use ONLY his missal)

and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
(the novus ordo introduced new ceremonies and new prayers, and also deleted ones from the 1962 missal.  All of this is not allowed, is illegal and sinful).
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Meg on April 23, 2018, 02:06:47 PM
Divide and conquer. For what ever reason God is allowing Satan to even destroy the faithful Catholics now. The Church is disappearing.


I agree, for the most part. We can still keep our faith with great effort, even though there are so many who sow division among traditional Catholics (sedes being the main ones). God is allowing it. Maybe to test our faith - I don't really know. 

Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 23, 2018, 02:54:12 PM
No dispensation is needed for avoiding the Novus Ordo because it's not Catholic. It doesn't matter if there are trads who believe Frank is the pope. They still don't need a dispensation to avoid a non-Catholic service that is the Novus Ordo Missae.

You've been told this a number of times, now.
Says who?  According to the "pope" of the Catholic Church, the Novus Ordo IS CATHOLIC.  The point I am trying to make is that none of us have any declaration from the Church stating that the Novus Ordo mass is not Catholic and therefore we can skip it.

As trads, we make private judgments ALL.THE.TIME.  That's why it's silly for one group to wag their fingers at another group for making a different private judgment that they think is wrong.
 
To be clear, I totally agree with you about the NO not being Catholic, so I'm not sure why you're saying "you've been told this a number of times now".
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 02:57:46 PM

Quote
The point I am trying to make is that none of us have any declaration from the Church stating that the Novus Ordo mass is not Catholic and therefore we can skip it. 
We have a declaration in Quo Primum that it is illegal and sinful.  Don’t need a declaration that it’s not Catholic.  
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 23, 2018, 03:04:16 PM
We have a declaration in Quo Primum that it is illegal and sinful.  Don’t need a declaration that it’s not Catholic.  
Specifically where does it state that a mass promulgated by the Catholic Church and a supposed Catholic pope is illegal and sinful? 
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 23, 2018, 03:06:39 PM
Ask and ye shall receive...


We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, (In other words, the whole church)

and We order them in virtue of holy obedience (sin of disobedience is in play here)

to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us (Pope orders the Church to use ONLY his missal)

and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
(the novus ordo introduced new ceremonies and new prayers, and also deleted ones from the 1962 missal.  All of this is not allowed, is illegal and sinful).
Interestingly enough, this does not mention popes.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 03:10:08 PM
Quote
Interestingly enough, this does not mention popes.
Wilful ignorance.

...or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be...or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 23, 2018, 03:21:54 PM
Wilful ignorance.

...or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be...or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence
And yet he still doesn't mention the most important person in rank: pope.  He mentions "cardinals" but not "popes".  It is much more likely that he wasn't including future popes for the very reason that popes are supreme legislators for ecclesiastical law and they have the power to change laws made by their predecessors.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: forlorn on April 23, 2018, 03:26:14 PM
Wilful ignorance.

...or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be...or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence
Except Pope St. Pius V and his direct successor both altered the mass. 
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 03:31:27 PM
A law is a law.  Unless a pope changes the law, the law remains in force.  Paul VI never changed Quo Primum, so it's requirements/penalties are still in effect.

Quo Primum has been revised multiple times since 1570, but all revisions were minor and not substantial.  The new mass was a substantial change AND not a revision of the 1962 missal, hence it is illegal and sinful.

 
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 23, 2018, 03:37:44 PM
A law is a law.  Unless a pope changes the law, the law remains in force.  Paul VI never changed Quo Primum, so it's requirements/penalties are still in effect.

Quo Primum has been revised multiple times since 1570, but all revisions were minor and not substantial.  The new mass was a substantial change AND not a revision of the 1962 missal, hence it is illegal and sinful.

 
Says Pax Vobis.  Not Pope Paul VI and all his successors.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: forlorn on April 23, 2018, 03:39:11 PM
A law is a law.  Unless a pope changes the law, the law remains in force.  Paul VI never changed Quo Primum, so it's requirements/penalties are still in effect.

Quo Primum has been revised multiple times since 1570, but all revisions were minor and not substantial.  The new mass was a substantial change AND not a revision of the 1962 missal, hence it is illegal and sinful.

 
The Pope may change a law with a new law replacing or contradicting it. Quo Primum was not a change of the previous laws regarding Mass, in case you didn't notice, but a new one itself just as Paul's was. 
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: TKGS on April 23, 2018, 03:40:25 PM
Ask and ye shall receive...


We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, (In other words, the whole church)

and We order them in virtue of holy obedience (sin of disobedience is in play here)

to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us (Pope orders the Church to use ONLY his missal)

and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
(the novus ordo introduced new ceremonies and new prayers, and also deleted ones from the 1962 missal.  All of this is not allowed, is illegal and sinful).
Interestingly, none of this requires attendance under pain of mortal sin.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 03:42:24 PM
Quote
Not Pope Paul VI and all his successors.
Pope Benedict said that Quo Primum was never revoked and always in effect.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 03:51:19 PM
Quote
The Pope may change a law with a new law replacing or contradicting it.
Yes, it's possible, but Pope Benedict said that's not what happened.  Secondly, Paul VI's new law is not required under pain of sin, so his law has no binding authority.  Quo Primum is binding, under pain of sin, so it's authority outweighs Paul VI's non-authority.

Quote
Quo Primum was not a change of the previous laws regarding Mass, in case you didn't notice, but a new one itself just as Paul's was.
Quo Primum did not make a "brand new" missal, but simply took all the various rites (which were essentially the same) which had existed since Apostolic times and made the mass uniform.  Anything which Pope St Pius V discarded was non-essential.
Paul VI's missal made substantial changes, most notably to the consecration.  And since the consecration is essential and from Christ directly, these changes are substantial, illegal and immoral.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 23, 2018, 03:54:30 PM
Pope Benedict said that Quo Primum was never revoked and always in effect.
The same man that never declared the Paul VI mass sinful and illegal.  
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Croix de Fer on April 23, 2018, 03:58:34 PM
Says who?  According to the "pope" of the Catholic Church, the Novus Ordo IS CATHOLIC.  The point I am trying to make is that none of us have any declaration from the Church stating that the Novus Ordo mass is not Catholic and therefore we can skip it.

As trads, we make private judgments ALL.THE.TIME.  That's why it's silly for one group to wag their fingers at another group for making a different private judgment that they think is wrong.
 
To be clear, I totally agree with you about the NO not being Catholic, so I'm not sure why you're saying "you've been told this a number of times now".

Do you need a doctor to tell you not to swallow a cyanide capsule, or can you make that decision yourself?

Also, Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum preemptively made the Novus Ordo illicit, therefore, based on that reality, alone, there should be no confusion about whether or not a Catholic should go to the counterfeit mass of Paul VI. Catholics are required NOT to go to it.

This is not a matter of a Catholic arbitrarily making decisions about a grave matter concerning the Church.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 03:59:15 PM
Quote
Interestingly, none of this requires attendance under pain of mortal sin.
A law regarding the liturgy is for the clerics directly and the laity is assumed, because they have the obligation to attend mass each Sunday, not use the liturgical missal.  It is not the laity's job to say mass, but hear mass only.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 04:01:28 PM
Quote
The same man that never declared the Paul VI mass sinful and illegal. 
When Benedict XVI declared that Quo Primum was never revoked and still in force, he confirmed the above, even though you are too dense (and stubborn) to admit the logical consequences of this reality.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: forlorn on April 23, 2018, 04:06:47 PM
When Benedict XVI declared that Quo Primum was never revoked and still in force, he confirmed the above, even though you are too dense (and stubborn) to admit the logical consequences of this reality.
And yet Benedict continued to say that Novus Ordo mass, so I think you're misrepresenting his words. Had he taken his own statement to mean as you take it to mean, he would not have said the new mass.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 04:09:53 PM
Quote
And yet Benedict continued to say that Novus Ordo mass, so I think you're misrepresenting his words. Had he taken his own statement to mean as you take it to mean, he would not have said the new mass.
We all believe in the 10 commandments, yet we continue to violate them.  One's actions are separate from the Truth.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 23, 2018, 04:23:39 PM
Pope Benedict said that Quo Primum was never revoked and always in effect.

So what?  Nice of him to share his opinion on the matter.  After all, that's all that Popes do when they're not teaching infallibly.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 23, 2018, 04:47:13 PM
So what?  Nice of him to share his opinion on the matter.  After all, that's all that Popes do when they're not teaching infallibly.
But his opinion in this matter works for those who wish to believe that Paul VI, an undoubtedly true pope of the Catholic Church according to them, promulgated a sinful and illegal liturgy in the name of the Catholic Church.
:facepalm:

It also allows them to claim that they haven't used their own private judgment in a grave ecclesiastical matter.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: 2Vermont on April 23, 2018, 05:00:08 PM
And yet Benedict continued to say that Novus Ordo mass, so I think you're misrepresenting his words. Had he taken his own statement to mean as you take it to mean, he would not have said the new mass.
Not only that but he also stated quite clearly that the Ordinary (Novus Ordo) and "Extraordinary" (TLM) forms are one and the same rite.  So much for "Truth".
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 05:10:10 PM
Infallibility doesn’t apply to legal matters, only faith and morals.  Law is law and stays in force until changed. 
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Ladislaus on April 23, 2018, 06:01:08 PM
Infallibility doesn’t apply to legal matters, only faith and morals.  Law is law and stays in force until changed.

Ah, yes, Pax once again pulling things out of his posterior.  What, is this now the 4th or 5th time you've been caught and exposed for doing this on this thread alone?  Garbage.  It's held by all theologians to be theologically certain that the Church's Universal Law (e.g. Canon Law) are protected by the Church's disciplinary infallibility.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 06:51:16 PM
A strict discipline (i.e. law) is not a matter of faith and morals, i.e. the communion fast, or rules for excommunication, or rules for when feast days are celebrated.  These are human laws, which St Peter has the power to 'bind and loose'.  Divine Law and Divine Truth cannot change and infallibility's purpose is to guard and protect that which is unchangeable, which no pope can change.  Again, a lack of distinctions is your problem.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Stubborn on April 24, 2018, 04:39:00 AM
Ah, yes, Pax once again pulling things out of his posterior.  What, is this now the 4th or 5th time you've been caught and exposed for doing this on this thread alone?  Garbage.  It's held by all theologians to be theologically certain that the Church's Universal Law (e.g. Canon Law) are protected by the Church's disciplinary infallibility.
Where exactly do you come up with this stuff?  "Disciplinary infallibility".  :facepalm:

Talk about pulling things out of ones posterior.
Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: Stubborn on April 24, 2018, 05:30:39 AM
Ah, yes, Pax once again pulling things out of his posterior.  What, is this now the 4th or 5th time you've been caught and exposed for doing this on this thread alone?  Garbage.  It's held by all theologians to be theologically certain that the Church's Universal Law (e.g. Canon Law) are protected by the Church's disciplinary infallibility.
I had to look this ladism up -  just as I thought, not only is such a thing *not* "held by all theologians" at all, it was never even discussed by any of them. This means Disciplinary infallibility is a new term and like all things NO, has multiple, novel meanings.  It did not even exist prior to 19th/20th century. "Disciplinary infallibility" is another NO innovation, a product of the unanimous vote of NO authors that poor Lad is promoting again as if it is something traditionally Catholic.

 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm)
Quote
From the CE (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm):
"What connexion is there between the discipline of the Church and her infallibility? Is there a certain disciplinary infallibility?

It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians unless apropos of the canonization of saints and the approbation of religious orders. It has, however, found a place in all recent [NO] treatises on the Church.

The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favor of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility blah blah blah..."

Title: Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
Post by: manilavanilla on April 24, 2018, 11:09:41 AM
"Slightly tedious comment", especially considering that yet another new member jumps straight in with fostering enmities and divisions within the Resistance.

1. Every single Traditional Catholic is a self appointed theologian, and must be so in order to remain Traditional. If some people put more effort in this than others, is that something we should be deriding them for?

2. Mr Johnson has already explained his reason for the time he did not post here under his own name, and that reason had nothing to do with a lack of courage, on the contrary. By the way, where's your courage in anonymously attacking those who unlike you have the courage and integrity to speak in their own name?

3. The history of the SSPX is full of troubles caused by two seemingly opposite sides, based on the same underlying error: those who left to join the Conciliar Church, and those who left to become sedevacantists. Your comments about sedes not being "as much a threat" is just plain ignorant. You should learn to think before you speak.

4. Your accusations about Mr Johnson's "disguising his own liberalism" is a gratuitous accusation and further proof of your malice.

You should take a lesson from Mr Johnson and learn to research the issues you like to comment on, to think before you speak, and to speak like a Catholic. You are the type of person that sows divisions, spreads falsehoods, repulses honest and serious Catholics and is able to ruin a forum.

Who do you think is the one causing enmities and division? Is it not you with your bizarre attitude, attacking Bishop Williamson for sitting at home listening to Mozart?

Just take some deep breaths and do a good examination of conscience which is not based on emotions.

We can't force artificial structures on tradition. There is a crises in the Church which gives a liberty which can be dangerous, but it is a liberty which is necessary for the survival of the faith in these times. This is why Bishop Williamsons "small pockets" analysis is so good.

The person who is supposed to be in charge of the Church is Pope Francis. Not Bishop Faure, or Bishop Z, as you might want.