Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 9794 times)

Cryptinox · « **on:** January 25, 2021, 08:05:34 PM »

I have been wondering this since most of the people here don't seem to be anti una cuм sede or not. If you are anti una cuм how far do you take it? Do you simply believe that you can't attend una cuм if you are sede or do you believe every single mass where Francis is mentioned is a sacrilege? Sanborn's group seems to be the latter. I even saw a priest under him say one una cuм mass is more offensive to God than every single abortion ever committed. I don't hold the anti una cuм position but if I did I would probably just hold the view that you can't attend if you are sede but I'd leave it at that.

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** January 26, 2021, 08:30:10 AM »

That group likes to smash their competition by cheating, basically.

"If you go to one of THOSE competing chapels, you will go to hell!"

How CONVENIENT for Bp. Dolan & co., removing the other Mass options for their parishioners. They're stuck, I guess! Oh darn.

Admiral · « **Reply #2 on:** May 03, 2021, 01:52:09 AM »

Yes, I’m a “non una cuм” sedevacantist.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #3 on:** May 03, 2021, 02:56:33 AM »

Penny Catechism:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** May 03, 2021, 04:54:36 AM »

I know that Bishop Sanborn is sincere about his stance, whereas I do feel there are some politics behind that of Bishop Dolan.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** May 03, 2021, 04:56:30 AM »

If I were a priest, I would offer Mass “una cuм famulo tuo papa nostro” but then leave out the name, expressing sededoubtism.

Stubborn · « **Reply #6 on:** May 03, 2021, 05:52:03 AM »

From Who Shall Ascend?

"We say to you dear faithful people: Ask your priest whether he includes or omits the name of the Pope in his Masses. If he does not, give him no support; and give him no Mass intentions.

Tell him respectfully:

'Father (Bishop), I shall continue to come to Mass here. I have nowhere else to go, and I am bound under pain of mortal sin to assist at Mass on Sunday. But you have done my family and me, and all these other people, a grave injustice. You have exploited my want of theological knowledge to involve me in something which I had no understanding of. I trusted that you knew what you were doing. Now, I am not so sure. I am not going to support your schism in any way.

My family and I have enough difficulty trying to do the right thing, without doing this which is most questionable. Without knowing the science of theology, I can see that it is not necessary for you or for me to know whether Pope John Paul is the legitimate successor of St. Peter. It doesn't hurt anything to pray for him in the Mass; it surely could not be wrong to do so, even if it is an honest mistake. Pope or not, God knows that he who is called John Paul II needs our prayers, as all of us need God's mercy. But to attack the office of the papacy, and to separate oneself from it, is a serious thing to be wrong about.

This Sedevacantism is your opinion. But the Mass not yours, and I know you do not have the right to change a word of it. I have heard you say the same thing about those who brought in the New Mass. And now this is what you have done! You are not being fair, and, it seems to me, you are not being wise. If you insist on being a schismatic, you should leave our Catholic church and gather your own flock from elsewhere. Tell the people from the first day that you do not accept Pope John Paul II as the true Pope, and see how many return."

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #7 on:** May 03, 2021, 06:23:49 AM »

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,1which announced to the Church that the “Euchologion”2 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

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

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 ɛƖɛctıon. 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 ɛƖɛctıon 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 ɛƖɛctıon and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”3

2) Msgr. Van Noort asserts the legitimacy of a reigning Pope to be a dogmatic fact (and therefore unquestionable4 ):

“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

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 ɛƖɛctıon 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

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 them7” as declaring:
“The rejection of a dogmatic fact is a mortal sin against faith.”8

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 isn’t he the Pope?9

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

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 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

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

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

“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

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

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** May 03, 2021, 07:31:54 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 06:23:49 AM

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.”

Fantastic. So there are Resistance priests who are sede-doubtists? That's great to here. They are right to denounce the dogmatic sedeplenists.

Who are these priests and are they still with the Resistance?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** May 03, 2021, 07:35:29 AM »

Sorry, Sean, but that article is a massive hot mess, conflating one thing after another ... your typical style when you've already come to a predetermined conclusion.

If it is dogmatically certain that the V2 papal claimants are legitimate, then you are, with dogmatic certainty, a schismatic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** May 03, 2021, 07:42:12 AM »

If the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is dogmatic fact, then was Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic for openly calling into question their legitimacy?

Archbishop Lefebvre clearly disagrees that their legitimacy is dogmatic fact.

Archbishop Lefebvre:

Quote

“You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

“To whatever extent the pope departed from…tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of ɛƖɛctıon are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jєωs, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)

“If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)

Quote

“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** May 03, 2021, 07:52:38 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 07:35:29 AM

Sorry, Sean, but that article is a massive hot mess, conflating one thing after another ... your typical style when you've already come to a predetermined conclusion.

If it is dogmatically certain that the V2 papal claimants are legitimate, then you are, with dogmatic certainty, a schismatic.

Yes, yes, we know you believe Lefebvre’s position is schismatic. You should just declare yourself pope.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** May 03, 2021, 07:58:27 AM »

Sededoubtism with a deference to resolution by the Church was Archbishop Lefebvre's true position ... a position not unlike that of Father Chazal.

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE WAS NOT A DOGMTIC SEDEPLENIST !!!

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #13 on:** May 03, 2021, 08:00:03 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 07:42:12 AM

If the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is dogmatic fact, then was Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic for openly calling into question their legitimacy?

Archbishop Lefebvre clearly disagrees that their legitimacy is dogmatic fact.

Archbishop Lefebvre:

Typical weak sede sauce with chips.
He makes 2 statements in 25 years, never reaffirms them, expels active sedes, institutes oaths against them, but he was allegedly indifferent on the matter.
Notice how Lad equates this with “openly calling into question their legitimacy!”
In fact, he does just the opposite when he decides the Society will officially accept the popes and read their names in the Mass, while expelling those who “openly call into question their legitimacy.”

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** May 03, 2021, 08:01:16 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 07:52:38 AM

Yes, yes, we know you believe Lefebvre’s position is schismatic. You should just declare yourself pope.

No, Johnson, I just demonstrated how Lefebvre was not a dogmatic sedevacantist like you.

Now, answer the question:

If it is dogmatically certain that the V2 papal claimants are legitimate popes, then why wasn't +Lefebvre a heretic ... in your eyes. After all, it's heresy to even doubt a dogma.

So please explain.

Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 9794 times)

Cryptinox

Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Matthew

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Admiral

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Viva Cristo Rey

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Stubborn

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

SeanJohnson

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

SeanJohnson

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

SeanJohnson

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?