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

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Question for Non Una cuм supporters  (Read 646 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LeDeg

Question for Non Una cuм supporters
« on: October 31, 2020, 04:58:36 PM »
If Francis died tomorrow, would the non una cuм absolutist's then say that it was licit to attend an SSPX/R&R Mass since it would not have a Novus Ordo claimant to insert in the Canon? In other words, illicit today, licit tomorrow,  then illicit again after the Conclave? 
Logged

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: Question for Non Una cuм supporters
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2020, 05:12:06 PM »
i’m sincerely curious as well
Logged

Offline Stanley N

Re: Question for Non Una cuм supporters
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2020, 09:39:21 AM »
Probably not. The name of the metropolitan bishop is also in the liturgy. 
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Question for Non Una cuм supporters
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2020, 11:00:27 AM »
Quote from: LeDeg on October 31, 2020, 04:58:36 PM
If Francis died tomorrow, would the non una cuм absolutist's then say that it was licit to attend an SSPX/R&R Mass since it would not have a Novus Ordo claimant to insert in the Canon? In other words, illicit today, licit tomorrow,  then illicit again after the Conclave?

I actually believe that most of them would.  I have enjoyed the (material) interregna because for a few days "we're all sedevacantists" ... and we can put aside the bickering and division on that issue.  Although I think someone like Meg would still excoriate me for being a sede-whateverist.

As I've mentioned, I'm a dogmatic indefectibilist, so whether or not one puts the papal claimant in the Canon doesn't matter to me per se.  I could see a case for a sedeprivationist including the material pope in the Canon.  Even the uber-dogmatic Dimonds say that by itself it's not all that significant.  One could be correct (IMO of course) on all the core principles, like a Fr. Chazal, and still put the papal claimant into the Canon based on following the opinion of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas.  I can't really argue about that at all.
Logged

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: Question for Non Una cuм supporters
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2020, 06:35:39 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on November 03, 2020, 11:00:27 AM
I actually believe that most of them would.  I have enjoyed the (material) interregna because for a few days "we're all sedevacantists" ... and we can put aside the bickering and division on that issue.  Although I think someone like Meg would still excoriate me for being a sede-whateverist.

As I've mentioned, I'm a dogmatic indefectibilist, so whether or not one puts the papal claimant in the Canon doesn't matter to me per se.  I could see a case for a sedeprivationist including the material pope in the Canon.  Even the uber-dogmatic Dimonds say that by itself it's not all that significant.  One could be correct (IMO of course) on all the core principles, like a Fr. Chazal, and still put the papal claimant into the Canon based on following the opinion of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas.  I can't really argue about that at all.
Come to think of it doesn't the SSPX put the local bishop in the canon too?  And wouldn't that be an issue for a dogmatic non una cuм person?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »