Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?  (Read 4472 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12460
  • Reputation: +4912/-806
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
« Reply #90 on: May 05, 2021, 06:08:14 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sure, that would not have been sufficient had Drew bothered to produce a single theological source on the subject to challenge the CE.  He had absolutely nothing but his wishful thinking.
    You are so full of baloney. I mean really full of it.

    Drew sited many theological sources, the following sources he referenced are in just the handful of his posts in the first 8 pages of the 76 page thread I looked at, certainly he quoted dozens more in that thread alone....

    Drew's theological sources in the first 8 pages....

    St. Thomas
    Rev. Joseph Pohle, who sites...
    Pope Zosimus
    Fr. Hesse
    St. Alphonsus
    St. Cornelius a Lapide

    Want to know how many theological sources you bothered to quote in the first 8 pages? ZERO.
    That's right, none!

    As is typical for you, you quote your own ideas, beliefs and opinions as your theological sources all the time - while claiming your opponents never quote any sources.




     
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33853
    • Reputation: +19908/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #91 on: May 05, 2021, 07:35:45 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • So there is a subjective element to it ... similar to what would have been the case during the Great Western schism.  If I was certain that my guy was the pope, I probably shouldn't attend a Mass una-cuм one of (what I believed to be) the Anti-popes.  But if I was uncertain, not sure about, which one was the actual Pope, I don't see that it would be a sin to attend any of the Masses for a decent reason.

    Those citations about dropping the name being schismatic assume that the person recognizes that the man is the pope, but refuses to name him; that would constitute a schismatic act.

    I hold that we're in a time analogous to that of the Great Western schism, where there's less-than-absolute certainty regarding the identity of the Pope.  Let's not get into the Universal Acceptance issue here, since we've had many threads on the subject.

    Assume, for the sake or argument, that there's a serious doubt about the identity of the true pope, under those circuмstances, would it be wrong to assist at either una-cuм or non-una-cuм Masses?  I don't believe so.  I think you could go either way.  Even if you're a sedeprivationist, you could put the name in there given that he holds the office of the papacy, even if he lacks the formal authority on account of heresy, etc.

    Given this situation, if I were a priest, I would keep the phrase "una cuм famulo tuo papa nostro" but then not insert the name, as a profession of formal intention to be in Communion with the papacy, even if there's doubt about who that is at the moment.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33853
    • Reputation: +19908/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #92 on: May 05, 2021, 07:50:11 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • If the Priest is reasonable, we can make allowance for the difficulties for his conscience. This is what +ABL did, and some wrongly portray +ABL as almost sede because of that. No, that's wrong. +ABL made allowance for the sedes if they would be reasonable. Those who proved unreasonable were expelled in 1983. +Sanborn's position, and those like it, as expressed by that Priest under him, is clearly extremist in the extreme. It is not open to reason. There is hardly anything that can be reasonably done in such cases. If the Priest is open to reason, he will accept praying for the Pope for the sake of those who assist at his Mass believing it to be una cuм the Pope.

    Sedevacantism wasn't the primary issue with The Nine.  In fact, I was told by a couple of The Nine that not all of them were actually sedevacantist at the time of their expulsion, and the Nine didn't have issues with those who did offer Mass "una cuм".  Primarily it had to do with NO priests cooperating with the SSPX without being conditionally ordained, with the SSPX acceptance of NO annulments, and the imposition of the 1962 Missal (along with the 1955 Holy Week rites).  Recall that this was at the time where Archbishop Lefebvre was optimistic about relations with JP2 (after Paul VI was gone) and so he was in a more conciliatory spirit.  So the 1980-1984 +Lefebvre actually had a position very similar to that of the more recent one of +Fellay.

    That's why I get frustrated with the neo-SSPX vs. Resistance battling about who represents the TRUE spirit of +Lefebvre.  They both do and they both don't.  It depends on whether you're talking about the 1980-1984 +Lefebvre (more like +Fellay) or the 1976-8 & 1984-1991 +Lefebvre (more like the Resistance).

    Similarly, +Lefebvre was more anti-sedevacantist from 1980-1984, but then came a hair's breadth from going sedevacantist himself in 1976 (suspension by Paul VI) and then again in 1986 (Assisi).

    There simply was no monolithic Archbishop Lefebvre.  Like many Traditional Catholics, he changed his mind and his attitude from time to time.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33853
    • Reputation: +19908/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #93 on: May 05, 2021, 07:57:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So there is a subjective element to it ... similar to what would have been the case during the Great Western schism.  If I was certain that my guy was the pope, I probably shouldn't attend a Mass una-cuм one of (what I believed to be) the Anti-popes.  But if I was uncertain, not sure about, which one was the actual Pope, I don't see that it would be a sin to attend any of the Masses for a decent reason.

    I might even go a step further.  Applying the principles of probabilism (or semi-probabilism) [St. Alphonsus was first a probabilist and then after his position was criticized, he modified it somewhat], it would likely be morally licit to attend the Mass of any of these popes that you thought could possibly be the Pope.  In other words, if you considered it possible, even remotely possible, that one of these other guys was the pope, you could licitly assist at their Masses.  "Probable" in Latin didn't mean, like the current English, that "it's most likely to be true", but rather that something was "possibly true".  That's why in that one passage on explicit faith, St. Alphonsus referred to one position being MORE "probable" than the other.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11795
    • Reputation: +8051/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #94 on: May 05, 2021, 08:02:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I hold that we're in a time analogous to that of the Great Western schism, where there's less-than-absolute certainty regarding the identity of the Pope.  Let's not get into the Universal Acceptance issue here, since we've had many threads on the subject.

    ...

    Given this situation, if I were a priest, I would keep the phrase "una cuм famulo tuo papa nostro" but then not insert the name, as a profession of formal intention to be in Communion with the papacy, even if there's doubt about who that is at the moment.

    This is crazy nonsense:

    You don’t want to get into the universal consent argument, because it highlights just how crazy your homemade theory is:

    Today’s situation could not possibly be more opposite from the GWS (where large chunks of prelates favored competing claimants, whereas today NONE do): Instead of “two popes for one Church,” we have “one pope for two churches.”

    Therefore, there is no pretext for doubting the legitimacy of the pope (we have universal consent), and consequently, there is no pretext for omitting Francis from the una cuм.

    Moreover, in the GWS, supporters of the contending claimants would have inserted one name or the other, whereas you are suggesting inserting nothing except an illicit distortion of the rubrics referencing unity with the papacy rather than a pope (which Fr. Cekada rightly calls stupid, and a violation of the rubrics), all because you subjectively doubt.

    It doesn’t get any more Protestant than that.

    You should be banned from this forum for deceiving simpler minds.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33853
    • Reputation: +19908/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #95 on: May 05, 2021, 08:07:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You don’t want to get into the universal consent argument, because it highlights just how crazy your homemade theory is:

    No, I am presciding from it here in order to keep the considerations distinct; otherwise the two issues can get conflated.  That is important when logically analyzing issues.  You start be determining the principles in isolation and only LATER apply them to various scenarios.

    Your constant puerile outburst are not helpful to the conversation.

    So the question is, ASSUMING for now "uncertainty" regarding the identity of the Pope such as what transpired during the Great Western Schism (whether you believe that to be the case or not), WOULD IT BE sinful for someone who adhered to one pope to assist at a Mass "una cuм" one of the other guys.  That helps illustrate the moral principles involved.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33853
    • Reputation: +19908/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #96 on: May 05, 2021, 08:09:01 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • You should be banned from this forum for deceiving simpler minds.

    You should be banned from this forum for BEING a "simpler mind"  :laugh1:

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33853
    • Reputation: +19908/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #97 on: May 05, 2021, 08:10:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Therefore, there is no pretext for doubting the legitimacy of the pope (we have universal consent), and consequently, there is no pretext for omitting Francis from the una cuм.

    Well, tell that to Archbishop Lefebvre, who most certainly doubted their legitimacy (except for during the 1980-1984 timeframe).


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11795
    • Reputation: +8051/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #98 on: May 05, 2021, 08:14:04 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Well, tell that to Archbishop Lefebvre, who most certainly doubted their legitimacy (except for during the 1980-1984 timeframe).
    Total sede lie.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33853
    • Reputation: +19908/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #99 on: May 05, 2021, 08:21:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Total sede lie.

    “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)

    “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)

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11795
    • Reputation: +8051/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #100 on: May 05, 2021, 08:53:54 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • “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)

    “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)

    You don’t seem to be able to perceive a qualitative distinction between “it is not impossible” and “I doubt he is pope.”

    I myself could accept “it is not impossible,” yet I haven’t the least doubt regarding Francis’s legitimacy.

    The coherence comes from recognizing the gulf between “theological certitude” and “infallibly certain.”


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1389
    • Reputation: +474/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #101 on: May 05, 2021, 09:30:52 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • :facepalm:  Who told Catholics that all the above was catholic?   ...The Magisterium...which started with the Apostles and the Church Fathers, who handed down Tradition and who codified Scripture.

    We are Catholic and different from Prots because we hold to the truth which comes from Christ, which includes the Magisterium, but which the magisterium (the teachers in the seats) can err from. 


    Quote
    Galatians 1:6-9

    [6] I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. [10] For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

    http://www.drbo.org/chapter/55001.htm


    Pax, I think a good response to this comes from your own words:


    Quote
    This whole argument about 'rule of faith' or 'proximate' vs 'remote' is confusing and THAT is what is causing the disagreement, in my opinion.  The only point I'm trying to make is that the Deposit of Faith came before the Church, since Christ's teachings existed before the Church was founded, since Christ taught the Apostles everything before He ascended into heaven and the Church wasn't officially started until 10 days later at Pentecost.  So, which came first, the teachings of the Church or the Church?  The teachings.  What is the role of the magisterium?  To protect and re-teach those teachings.  Thus, the foundation of the Church are its teachings (i.e. doctrine).  Therefore, what is more important, what is being protected, or the protector?  Obviously, what is being protected is more important, therefore doctrine is more important than the magisterium.

    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg599254/#msg599254

    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33853
    • Reputation: +19908/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #102 on: May 05, 2021, 09:45:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • You don’t seem to be able to perceive a qualitative distinction between “it is not impossible” and “I doubt he is pope.”

    :facepalm: doubt is opposed logically to certainty.  When you say it is not impossible, that means there is no certainty, ergo there's doubt.

    I thought you spent time at STAS, and the first course that used to be taught there was logic.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 33853
    • Reputation: +19908/-4226
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #103 on: May 05, 2021, 10:08:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • We are Catholic and different from Prots because we hold to the truth which comes from Christ, which includes the Magisterium, but which the magisterium (the teachers in the seats) can err from.

    No, you completely ignore the formal motive of faith and rule of faith.  Someone could hypothetically believe all the Church dogmas, but if they discerned these based on their own private interpretation of Scripture, then they do not believe them based on the proper formal motive of faith.  I say hypothetically because in the practical order it's impossible for private interpretation to lead to all of the exact dogmas taught by the Church, which is why there are approximately 23,000 different Christian "denominations" out there.

    Indeed, not every pronouncement of the Magisterium is guaranteed to be free from error, but we're not quibbling about the notes or extent of infallibility here.
    With the Conciliar Church we have an institution that has become so corrupted that it lacks the marks of the Church, that the Magisterium is thoroughly polluted with Modernism, and is leading souls into grave error.  We have a Universal Discipline that produced and promulgated a Rite of Worship that is offensive to God.  We have the canonization of the chief culprits in this destruction of the Church.  All this, when, taken as a whole, would constitute a defection of the Church.  Or, to put it a different way, when the Church has officially (in its Magisterium, Worship, Canon Law, etc.) gotten so bad and corrupt that it requires that we separate from submission to this teaching and this form of worship, i.e., that it requires the existence of a Traditional movement, then that would constitute a defection of the Church.  If that doesn't, then there's no such thing as a defection of the Church.

    We're not talking about a problematic statement or two in Vatican II.  If that's all there was to this, there would in fact be no Traditional movement.  At that point, it would be a situation of respectfully questioning these through the appropriate channels.  See the thread I started regarding all the statements of +Lefebvre declaring that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Church.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1389
    • Reputation: +474/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #104 on: May 05, 2021, 10:36:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, you completely ignore the formal motive of faith and rule of faith.  Someone could hypothetically believe all the Church dogmas, but if they discerned these based on their own private interpretation of Scripture, then they do not believe them based on the proper formal motive of faith.  I say hypothetically because in the practical order it's impossible for private interpretation to lead to all of the exact dogmas taught by the Church, which is why there are approximately 23,000 different Christian "denominations" out there.

    If you followed your "proper formal motive of faith" you wouldn't be here but on Catholic Answers defending the Conciliar Church. If not, tell us why not? On what basis do you reject the magisterium of the Conciliar Church?


    Indeed, not every pronouncement of the Magisterium is guaranteed to be free from error, but we're not quibbling about the notes or extent of infallibility here.
    With the Conciliar Church we have an institution that has become so corrupted that it lacks the marks of the Church, that the Magisterium is thoroughly polluted with Modernism, and is leading souls into grave error.  We have a Universal Discipline that produced and promulgated a Rite of Worship that is offensive to God.  We have the canonization of the chief culprits in this destruction of the Church.  All this, when, taken as a whole, would constitute a defection of the Church.  Or, to put it a different way, when the Church has officially (in its Magisterium, Worship, Canon Law, etc.) gotten so bad and corrupt that it requires that we separate from submission to this teaching and this form of worship, i.e., that it requires the existence of a Traditional movement, then that would constitute a defection of the Church.  If that doesn't, then there's no such thing as a defection of the Church.

    True popes of the true Church could not do this if the Church is "indefectible" as you understand it. Or do you disagree? Please explain. 

    How could you not be Sedevacantist then if these popes have taught a universal discipline and rite of worship (among other things) that "would constitute a defection of the Church"? Truly, I'm trying to understand your position.



    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)