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: The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon  (Read 1136 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 9540
  • Reputation: +6255/-940
  • Gender: Male
The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon
« on: October 15, 2019, 09:26:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon of the Mass
     
    by The Editor
    https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/10/13/the-canonical-right-of-every-priest-to-stop-naming-francis-in-the-canon-of-the-mass/


    Most priests do not know that they have a canonical right to stop naming Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass. They think wrongly that to do so would either be outside of their authority or would involve an act of schism. That it is not schism nor a sin, is proven thus:

    Here is the canonical argument

    First, a validly elected Pope must be named in the Canon of the Mass as a sign of communion. This is by tradition and liturgical law.

    Second: Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected Roman Pontiff on April 19, 2005 A. D., just three days after his 78th birthday.

    This is a dogmatic fact, which cannot be denied.

    No validly elected pope’s name must be omitted from the Canon of the Mass during his lifetime, or before he validly resigns.

    Third: Pope Benedict XVI did not resign on Feb. 11, 2013, he merely retired from the active ministry, as he himself said on Feb. 28, 2013 in his final Allocution (see other evidence here). For extensive canonical information about this see ppbxvi.org.

    Fourth: That Pope Benedict XVI did validly resign was the falsehood which emanated from the Desk of Cardinal Sodano. (See explanation here)

    Now just as Cardinal Sodano should have acted, is how all priest should act. Namely,

    In accord with Canon 40, Priests who are to say mass hold a munus which is merely executory, in regard to whom to name at Mass in the Canon as Pope. This is because they do not decide on their own authority who is the pope and who is not the pope. They follow the command of a superior. That superior is above all the Pope.

    If a pope therefore does not renounce his office in accord with canon 332 §2, because he renounces his ministerium instead, that renunciation has no canonical effect, because there is no canon in the Church’s laws which regard the renunciation of ministries.

    Therefore, in accord with canon 40 and 41 A PRIEST IS FORBIDDEN to alter the name of the Pope in the Canon of the Mass. He cannot act on the basis of the declaration of Non Solum Propter in the same illegal manner Cardinal Sodano did. To do so would be to collaborate in his grave crime, deceive the faithful and enter into de facto schism with Pope Benedict. (see that article for a greater explanation of the crime and moral offence)

    Therefore, a priest must continue to name Benedict in the Canon of the Mass.

    Therefore, a priest must cease and desist naming Francis as soon as he recognizes the validity of this canonical argument.
    [color][size][font]
    (This argument is not that of the Editor of this Blog, who has merely expanded it for a fuller explanation — There are already a great number of priests who do not name Francis, but name Benedict instead, some openly, some secretly, some by saying for the Holy Father, without a specific name. God bless and strengthen and multiply these priests!)
     [/font][/size][/color]
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon
    « Reply #1 on: October 15, 2019, 09:36:55 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • So the pope did not resign, but merely retired from active ministry...and yet all the bishops and cardinals of the world are either ignorant of the fact or in collusion with the conspirators?

    Meanwhile, the entire teaching church universally and peaceably recognizes Francis as pope, making his papacy a dogmatic fact, and therefore binding.

    Conclusion: The author of the article is wrong.

    Ps: Not sure what the author hopes to gain by this argument.  He seems to imply that BXVI was better than Francis.  Personally, I prefer Francis’s honest modernism to BXVI’s disguising hermeneutic.  It deceives fewer people, and has a better chance of waking them up, whereas BXVI’s feint led some to believe modernist Rome was trying to restore Tradition to the Church.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon
    « Reply #2 on: October 15, 2019, 09:59:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 15, 2019, 09:36:55 AM
    Meanwhile, the entire teaching church universally and peaceably recognizes Francis as pope, making his papacy a dogmatic fact, and therefore binding.

    ... and according to you, therefore, making +Lefebvre and +Williamson heretics.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon
    « Reply #3 on: October 15, 2019, 09:59:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 15, 2019, 09:36:55 AM
    Meanwhile, the entire teaching church universally and peaceably recognizes Francis as pope, ...

    :laugh1:
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9540
    • Reputation: +6255/-940
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon
    « Reply #4 on: October 15, 2019, 10:02:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 15, 2019, 09:36:55 AM
    …I prefer Francis’s honest modernism…
    Hillary 2020!
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon
    « Reply #5 on: October 15, 2019, 10:33:04 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on October 15, 2019, 09:59:00 AM
    ... and according to you, therefore, making +Lefebvre and +Williamson heretics.

    Oh please, not this crap again.

    You are going to make Howlingsworth cry again.

    It is you who declares them heretics when you reinterpret their comments to question a dogmatic fact not me.

    And since your mentally unbalanced self-invented doctrines cause you to resort to rude behavior when they are contradicted by Catholic doctrine, I am just going to call you a moronic, idiotic, schismatic heretic, and be on my way.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6173
    • Reputation: +3147/-2941
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon
    « Reply #6 on: October 15, 2019, 10:52:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 15, 2019, 09:36:55 AM
    So the pope did not resign, but merely retired from active ministry...and yet all the bishops and cardinals of the world are either ignorant of the fact or in collusion with the conspirators?

    Meanwhile, the entire teaching church universally and peaceably recognizes Francis as pope, making his papacy a dogmatic fact, and therefore binding.

    Conclusion: The author of the article is wrong.

    Ps: Not sure what the author hopes to gain by this argument.  He seems to imply that BXVI was better than Francis.  Personally, I prefer Francis’s honest modernism to BXVI’s disguising hermeneutic.  It deceives fewer people, and has a better chance of waking them up, whereas BXVI’s feint led some to believe modernist Rome was trying to restore Tradition to the Church.

    I agree with everything above, especially preferring Francis to B16. It deceives fewer people when a Pope is completely upfront about his Modernism.

    Though I can understand why some trads prefer B16. He did actually say things, at times, which seemed reasonable. But B16, as you said, disguised his hermeneutic.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon
    « Reply #7 on: October 15, 2019, 11:09:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 15, 2019, 10:33:04 AM
    It is you who declares them heretics when you reinterpret their comments to question a dogmatic fact not me.

    No one has reinterpreted anything, you shameless liar.
    Logged

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1889
    • Reputation: +500/-141
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon
    « Reply #8 on: October 15, 2019, 11:16:48 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Sean is wrong about this.  I’ve seen video of Williamson saying maybe the Church would rule them imposters, and I’ve seen the lefebvre quotes.  They weren’t dogmatic about it.

    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon
    « Reply #9 on: October 15, 2019, 11:18:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 15, 2019, 11:16:48 AM
    Sean is wrong about this.  I’ve seen video of Williamson saying maybe the Church would rule them imposters, and I’ve seen the lefebvre quotes.  They weren’t dogmatic about it.
    1) CHURCH would rule (not private individuals)
    2) FUTURE TENSE (not today)

    Until and unless, there is no doubt at all.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon
    « Reply #10 on: October 15, 2019, 11:24:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 15, 2019, 11:16:48 AM
    Sean is wrong about this.  I’ve seen video of Williamson saying maybe the Church would rule them imposters, and I’ve seen the lefebvre quotes.  They weren’t dogmatic about it.

    Sean is not merely wrong; he's a liar.  +Lefebvre said repeatedly how the sedevacantists might be right, that he won't say that it's wrong to say there is no pope, how HE and +de Castro Mayer would have to publicly state the See is vacant if JP2 went ahead with Assisi.  There's only one quote where he says that the Church might someday declare them illegitimate, referring to the current papal claimant and not the one at the time in the future ... which is like saying that the Immaculate Conception is dogma now, but the Church might some day reverse the teaching.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon
    « Reply #11 on: October 15, 2019, 11:30:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on October 15, 2019, 11:24:36 AM
    Sean is not merely wrong; he's a liar.  +Lefebvre said repeatedly how the sedevacantists might be right, that he won't say that it's wrong to say there is no pope, how HE and +de Castro Mayer would have to publicly state the See is vacant if JP2 went ahead with Assisi.  There's only one quote where he says that the Church might someday declare them illegitimate, referring to the current papal claimant and not the one at the time in the future ... which is like saying that the Immaculate Conception is dogma now, but the Church might some day reverse the teaching.
    Nope:
    It’s like saying a papacy which is a dogmatic fact today (in virtue of the universal consent of the Church), might not be a dogmatic fact tomorrow (eg., If the Church declares the fact of his heresy, on which account he would obviously lost that universal consent). 
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Nishant Xavier

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2873
    • Reputation: +1893/-1750
    • Gender: Male
    • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
    Re: The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon
    « Reply #12 on: October 15, 2019, 02:06:45 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Sean
    It’s like saying a papacy which is a dogmatic fact today (in virtue of the universal consent of the Church), might not be a dogmatic fact tomorrow (eg., If the Church declares the fact of his heresy, on which account he would obviously lost that universal consent).
    Yes, that's exactly right, Sean. And this also illustrates nicely the difference between a Dogmatic Fact and a Dogma strictly so called. For a Dogmatic Fact is only contingently infallible, whereas a Dogma is necessarily infallible. A dogma will never cease to be true. A dogmatic fact could cease to be true, if the conditions necessary to make it a dogmatic fact (in this case, UA), cease to be true.

    Anyway, the OP article is right about at least one thing, "Second: Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected Roman Pontiff on April 19, 2005 A. D., just three days after his 78th birthday.

    This is a dogmatic fact, which cannot be denied."

    That much is true, but that much and that much only. The above also means that sedes who reject His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI necessarily commit a mortal sin ipso facto in doing so. If God judged them as they presume rashly to judge God's Vicar, they would be "manifest heretics outside the Church" themselves. However much or little their subjective culpability may be, denying that Pope Benedict XVI was Pope in 2005 is objectively a mortal sin, and therefore, once known, should be explicitly confessed and repented of.

    As for the absurd claim of the Bene-Vacantists, their own Pope recognizes Pope Francis. There may be a reason beyond man's limited thinking why God has allowed His Holiness Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI to remain alive to assist His Holiness Pope Francis in these times(as for e.g. that Pope Benedict XVI may help Pope Francis come closer to Tradition at a later time), but it is not the case that the latter is not the Pope. There is no clearer proof of this simple fact than that Pope Benedict XVI himself clearly recognizes Pope Francis.

    "
    Benedict XVI: The Church’s unity is stronger than internal conflicts
    Courtney Grogan/CNA
     28 June, 2019

    In a new interview, Benedict says 'The Pope is one, it is Francis'

    Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said in an article published Friday that the unity of the Church has always prevailed over internal struggles and affirmed that there is currently only one pope.
    “The Pope is one, it is Francis,” Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said in an interview with an Italian magazine published by Corriere Della Sera June 28."

    https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/06/28/benedict-xvi-there-is-only-one-pope-francis/
    Logged
    "We wish also to make amends for the insults to which Your Vicar on earth and Your Priests are everywhere subjected [above all by schismatic sedevacantists - Nishant Xavier], for the profanation, by conscious neglect or Terrible Acts of Sacrilege, of the very Sacrament of Your Divine Love; and lastly for the Public Crimes of Nations who resist the Rights and The Teaching Authority of the Church which You have founded." - Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Lord Jesus.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41863
    • Reputation: +23919/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon
    « Reply #13 on: October 15, 2019, 04:38:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 15, 2019, 11:30:06 AM
    Nope:
    It’s like saying a papacy which is a dogmatic fact today (in virtue of the universal consent of the Church), might not be a dogmatic fact tomorrow (eg., If the Church declares the fact of his heresy, on which account he would obviously lost that universal consent).

    Again you apply your wishful thinking to the quotations.  Only a single of the many pro-sedevacantist quotes from +Lefebvre indicate that he's waiting for the Church. He clearly states that it is permissible for Catholics (at the time he made the quote) to think that the then-"reigning" pope was not in fact a true pope.  ByzCat is no sedevacantist, and he clearly sees the quotes for what they are ... and not filtered through the Johnsonian distortion.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10305
    • Reputation: +6215/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Canonical Right of Every Priest to stop naming Francis in the Canon
    « Reply #14 on: October 15, 2019, 04:50:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    It’s like saying a papacy which is a dogmatic fact today (in virtue of the universal consent of the Church), might not be a dogmatic fact tomorrow (eg., If the Church declares the fact of his heresy, on which account he would obviously lost that universal consent). 
    Is there any historical precedence for a “dogmatic fact” being reversed?  If so, then the term is kinda meaningless and it subverts the unchanging nature of “dogma”, which can never change or be reversed.  
    .
    If there’s no historical precedent for any reversal, then we’d have to conclude that such an idea is potentially heretical to claim it’s possible.  And for one to suppose/question a “dogmatic fact” would be an extremely sinful act, without cause.  You can’t doubt a dogma, why can you doubt a dogmatic fact?
    .
    Thirdly, if +ABL was doubting this fact and if he did have a good reason to do so, then he’s calling into question the dogmatic fact itself, which is the essence of sedevacantism, in relation to the pope. 
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2
    « previous next »