Quote from: Bernardus

Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.

The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...

The 'non una cuм' position is just the new "branding" name of sedevacantism...



 

Quote from: Bernardus

I'm just stating the facts right. Fathers Pinaud and Rioult are not sedevacantists. They don't name Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass and Father Pinaud didn't name him in the Good Friday second Oremus for the Pope. He red the Oremus, but didn't say 'Franciscus'.

Last sentence of Eleison Comments #353:

"True priests should neither flirt with Rome today, Nor cut the Pope out of their Mass, I say."



 
[/quote

While one can (and should) love and respect, promote and support Bishop Williamson and Father Pfeiffer for their very courageous and honorable stand against the errors of Fellay and Co., one is not obliged too accept their speculative opinions as doctrine. Our Lord said that "even if an angel of heaven presches something different from my teaching-- let him(that angel from heaven) be anathema!! Our faith teaches that anathema is total rejection-- excommunication (like what the masons and Jєωs did to the Archbishop)
   Is Brogoglio teaching the same doctrine that Jesus Christ taught-- yes or no ? Would Christ have kissed the Koran, authored by the slanderers of His Holy Name? Pushed by haters of His Blessed Mother? If Jesus Christ COULD POSSIBLY EVER had said that Jєωs, communists, atheists, and infidels, as long as they were "good," will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven as communists, atheists, Jєωs and infidels; then Brogoglio is your man; then the stupidities he and Ratzinger spout are not heresies; then I stand corrected; and the good Lord has not allowed the chair of Peter to remain unoccupied.
   But if the garbage these guys are teaching is a different gospel from that of Our Blessed Lord-- then they are, ipso facto, by the fact of the matter, anathema; should be recognized as such, and shunned as excommunicates.

   And make absolutely no mistake about it. As Fellay and the Vaticanistas teach in Lumen Gentium 25, we are to know the mind and heart of the man from "his every day, daily, speech and language", from his statements and writings!! Lumen Gentium demands that (and Fellay promises to obey) all the statements, writings, and musings of "The Vicar of Christ," whether formal or informal in their medium and their nature.
    So, one is not obliged to accept an erroneous opinion regarding Francis, even if one otherwise may respect the opinion- holder. Without going into areas far afield of this post, suffice it to say mistakes have been made aplenty by many in the past. Almost everybody was snowed by Fellay into supporting the year 2000 phony dog and pony show in Rome; Urutagoity was ordained and let loose in Winona, even though the SSPX had been warned by the Rector of the Argentinian SSPX Seminary (Bp Morello) of his problems being around males;most priests were fooled by Fellay into ditching the original Litkurgical books and forcing the 1962 Missals on the faithful-- for a phony show of unity;most priests were conned into supporting the big outreach program " Priest where is the Mass; Mass, where is thy priest?", which opened the floodgates for acceptance of un ordained novus ordo Pres-by-ters-- without ever realizing that they were, in reality, degrading the worth and value of their very own seminary training and true ordinations as priests ordained to offer the eternal sacrifice.

What I want to make clear, after meeting Father Pinaud several times in his stay in Quebec and talking with him, is that Father didn't study in depth the theological, canonical and historical aspects of the problem. In the SSPX, this is a taboo question and someone that want to study it has to do it discretely, specially since the year 2000. So to say that Father Pinaud is a sedevacantist right now is dishonest.

Quote from: Luker

Quote from: Defender

Quote from: Bernardus

Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.

The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...

The 'non una cuм' position is just the new "branding" name of sedevacantism...



 

The non una cuм thing seems to be primarily an St Gertrude the Great/Fr Cekada thing.  That is their position, but it isn't shared by all sedevacantists, for example, CMRI and their affiliated priests.  I don't think either of those groups are going to be pronouncing 'anathemas' against each other.

This seems to be a new "una cuм" controversy, different than the one made famous by SGG.  If I an reading this right, they seem to be saying that the priest rejects the name of Francis in the Mass, while recognizing him as Pope simultaneously.  

This is new to me, and very strange.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Luker

Quote from: Defender

Quote from: Bernardus

Father Pinaud is not a sedevacantist. He is 'non una cuм'. This is not the same thing. I am a sedevacantist and I met Father Pinaud. Like Father Rioult, he is a practical 'non una cuм'. This is not a theological position on the crisis of the Church, but a practical one.

The lefebvrists, not knowing the difference between the two, are trying to demonize Father Pinaud as a sedevacantist. That is an old lefebvrist tactic since the late 1970's. They don't have any arguments other than: Archbishop Lefebvre said this, Archbishop Lefebvre said that. But the problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre said many contradictions on important issues from 1970 to his death in 1991...

The 'non una cuм' position is just the new "branding" name of sedevacantism...



 

The non una cuм thing seems to be primarily an St Gertrude the Great/Fr Cekada thing.  That is their position, but it isn't shared by all sedevacantists, for example, CMRI and their affiliated priests.  I don't think either of those groups are going to be pronouncing 'anathemas' against each other.

This seems to be a new "una cuм" controversy, different than the one made famous by SGG.  If I an reading this right, they seem to be saying that the priest rejects the name of Francis in the Mass, while recognizing him as Pope simultaneously.  

This is new to me, and very strange.

This is strange.  How would this possibly work?

I think they should at least get in touch and exchange notes. I know of several places in Canada where CMRI priests travel to do mass just for one family, when they can. It is hard to believe but some people are not aware of all the masses out there.