It is currently Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:49 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ] 
 Differences Among Sedevacantists Do Exist 
Author Message

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post Differences Among Sedevacantists Do Exist
Dear John, (I really must direct this to you) Pax et Bonum.

I have noticed that in our membership those who are writing do seem to differ a bit in their views as sedevacantists. This would be expected and can be appreciated -- with Charity.

It is very important to me that this virtue of charitable writing be chief among all of us. I have noticed that there is reference to a priest without his title of "Father," and even calling him by his last name only. This disturbs me because if this will be the standard, expected way of writing from our position - which must be approached with "fear and trembling" (as in all things regarding working out our salvation), I would find it difficult to continue as part of this forum.

This particular priest was ordained in 1976 by a Bishop; who himself was ordained Bishop in 1951. The Bishop was obviously ordained in the Traditional Rite of episcopal ordination, but the priest was ordained in the new Rite of priestly ordination. However, this priest offers only the Tridentine Mass, although he is not a sedevacantist in his theological position. I might not agree with a certain priest's attitudes, or methods, or views, but I would never call him by his last name, nor without his priestly title of "Father" or "Reverend." The same goes for a Novus Ordo bishop who was ordained Bishop pre-1968, in the Traditional Rite. Oh, my, this gets messy. . . .and intricate!

I also realize there is much doubt(?),as well as actual denial of the validity of the new Rite of episcopal ordination.

However, my personal opinion is that in the new Rite for priestly ordination, the lack of the word "ut" does not make this Rite invalid. This is my personal opinion and I am sedevacantist as to this present Father Ratzinger being pope.
I call him Father because he was a priest pre-Vatican II. (I don't wish here to go into his being an apostate and therefore no longer a priest, etc., because that is too much territory to cover and not to the point of this query.)

:arrow: I respectfully wish to hear your thoughts on this, John, but I remain concerned about a lack of respectfulness toward persons (especially "sacred" persons such as priests and bishops) who do not hold with us that Father Ratzinger is not the pope, but are indeed Traditional Catholics. I hold no brief for Father Ratzinger - none at all! But I do care that we exhibit Christian virtues even in our zealous "feelings" over the many issues we faceas Catholics today.

In the MOST Sacred Heart of Jesus, Ardith


Sun May 21, 2006 9:48 pm
Profile
New post 
The point about needless offensiveness is well taken.

But if opinions on sedevacantism and validity of rites and proper jurisdiction and when exactly the "beginnings of sorrow" actually began are so varied, it seems doubtful that everyone here could ever agree on what to call whom. I have reasons, for example, for thinking it improper, to say the least, to call the person vulgarly known as Pope Benedict XVI anything but Joseph Ratizinger or Ratzinger. I suppose that I could live with Benedict XVI as long as quotation marks were implied. I have no problem at all with calling "Cardinal" Mahony Cardinal Mahony, but that is only because my habit of speaking of "Ratzinger" and "Wojtyla" shows what I think of the source of imagined authority. It just gets too laborious to introduce someone like Cardinal Mahony as "Mr. Mahony of LA, styled 'Cardinal'" in a posting: my subsequent references to him as plain old Mahony would show what I think of his ecclesiastical title.

I would throw this out for consideration: theological writers usually refer to other theological writers by their last names. Even after the canonizations of some of their number. It's Bellarmine, Liguori... And just plain de Lugo and Suarez and Billot etc... The use of last names doesn't have to imply nastiness on a personal level: if someone really thinks that New Rite-ordained priests acceptable even to the SSPX as validly ordained are not validly ordained why should he be forced to call him "Father."? I've known some sedevacantists who literally put "Father" in quotation marks relative to all but three or four priests in the world. The issue was not always validity of Orders, but the right to minister, to act as priests, of "public heretics." Yes, it gets tricky. But I would argue that here the first concern should be the consciences of those who post here, not the imagined feelings of the public figures who might be mentioned in posts and who might conceivably read these posts. It might hurt someone more to have to call so-and-so "Father" than it hurts that Father or "Father" not to be called Father. Things are tough all over. I've had to grind my own teeth at one or two sedevacantists referring to "Pacelli"... I myself draw the line at "Roncalli", and even that comes harder for me than "Montini" or "Wojtyla"...

Right now it seems that this board is going to travel a pretty high road and keep an appropriate tone. I would submit that it would be perfectly appropriate that everyone do as he thinks theologically best in this matter of titles given his own "take" on the current Catholic situation, with no personal offense implied or taken. Then let the moderators and the forum owner do as THEY think best. And we'll see how things go.


Last edited by James Ghiorsi on Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:20 am, edited 2 times in total.

Sun May 21, 2006 10:50 pm

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post 
James Ghiorsi wrote:
. . . What is REALLY hurtful is having it thought that a true Holy Father, speaking for Christ, would direct a young man who came to him for spiritual guidance to read the ravings of a particularly blasphemous Modernist "cardinal" who in two weeks was, apparently, going to come out in favor of babykilling and Unnatural Vice.


Dear James, Pax et Bonum.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate your points as to the difficulties in what title (or not) to give to whom in this veil of tears. Perhaps I am still longing for the past - as in 1957 and before!

Please enlighten me as to the "news"(?) item - since I, at least, don't know this latest that you point out in your last paragraph.

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Sun May 21, 2006 11:04 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Well, I agree with both of you. :)

Yes, we are aiming to set a standard nobody has previously achieved. And yes, we will achieve it. Or I will just shut down the board. It is one of my explicit aims that we set an example to other traditional Catholic Internet publishers of zero compromise on truth and zero compromise on charity.

I refer to Fr. Gruner as Fr. Gruner because even though I think the "ut" does matter and therefore his Orders are doubtful, I think he is evidently of good will and seems to me to do a great deal of good by promoting Fatima, which is in many ways the central issue of our time and certainly the solution to the crisis.

I agree, however, in refusing ecclesiastical titles to heretics, and I only write Benedict XVI instead of Ratzinger because I know several present-day sedevacantists who were offended by the use by us of "Wojtyla" prior to their realisation that he wasn't pope, and I see it as a practical matter to avoid offending where possible. On the other hand, it is also a practical matter to refuse to call him Pope and I think we are bound to refuse that title.

All of this is only a matter of prudence serving charity, of course, because we have a right to call heretics whatever horrible names we like, including warlocks, heathens, publicans, etc.

On the separate but related point of the criticisms which can be made of Fr. Gruner's work, I think it behooves us to speak of him respectfully and charitably unless we have formed the judgement that he is not a Catholic or is of such manifest ill-will that men must be warned against him. I haven't formed that judgement, but if somebody has then it would be good for them to explain clearly their reasons.

I do think that there is a sense that the Fatima Crusader organisation (not sure what it is actually called) has become a bit of an end in itself, churning out literally millions of magazines each month and turning over countless millions of dollars. It reminds me a little of the "pro-life" industry, which is certainly a distraction from what should be receiving the attention of Catholics.

We have a member here who knows Fr. Gruner personally and may like to comment.

It's all very tricky in the present circumstances but if we are diffident in our opinions, and careful with facts and persons, we should muddle through all right and not have additional material for the confessional.

Yours in Christ our Risen King,
John Lane.


Sun May 21, 2006 11:22 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post 
Thank you, John, for your reply. I appreciate it very much. [/img]

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Mon May 22, 2006 12:17 am
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post Re: Differences Among Sedevacantists Do Exist
Abba wrote:
I call him Father because he was a priest pre-Vatican II. (I don't wish here to go into his being an apostate and therefore no longer a priest, etc.,


Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem melchisedech.

As for the bit about charity (or even plain old decency), it is indeed paramount. However, many moderns are (incurably?) hypersensitive, seeing a lack of charity where none is present. It is also very common for people to take a statement personally that is not personal in any way - and this cannot be helped, imo, in the present climate. It is a fine line, to be sure, but one cannot be always catering to the warped standards of this sentamental age. The velvet glove must sometimes be set aside, for the sake of the man you are trying to help.

Eamon

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Last edited by Eamon Shea on Mon May 22, 2006 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon May 22, 2006 12:38 am
Profile E-mail
New post 
Abba, that last bit was a reference to the recent scandal involving one Cardinal Martini.


Last edited by James Ghiorsi on Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon May 22, 2006 2:10 am

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Philly
New post what's in a name?
Of course charity and due respect are prime virtues which any decent discussion must promote. Ad hominem attacks accomplish nothing ane reveal a lack of charity, and desire to pray for someone;s conversion. But if a prelate of the nouvs ordo has demonstrated that he is a virtual apostate, it is both accurate, if tinged with sarcasm, and appropriate to refer to someone, eg, as "Mister Mahony" given the notoriousness of his actions. It is not disrespectful per se to refer to a priest by his last name in a long article in which his name comes up repeatedly. It is a sign of an open question to refer to him as Benedict without the title of pope


Mon May 22, 2006 3:44 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: what's in a name?
xcordeeclesiae wrote:
Of course charity and due respect are prime virtues which any decent discussion must promote. Ad hominem attacks accomplish nothing ane reveal a lack of charity, and desire to pray for someone;s conversion. But if a prelate of the nouvs ordo has demonstrated that he is a virtual apostate, it is both accurate, if tinged with sarcasm, and appropriate to refer to someone, eg, as "Mister Mahony" given the notoriousness of his actions. It is not disrespectful per se to refer to a priest by his last name in a long article in which his name comes up repeatedly. It is a sign of an open question to refer to him as Benedict without the title of pope


Yes, I think I agree with this except for the qualification that an ad hominem attack in the case of non-Catholics is certainly permissible and sometimes necessary, but I think that is what you imply with your comments on Cardinal Mahoney. Incidentally, I think it is why the saying goes, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar," because the question is often not so much what is permissible but rather what is wise in view of the object to be achieved. We may have a right to be rude in a given case, but will it assist? :)

I don't pretend to know everything about this and I've certainly offended against charity and prudence on plenty of occasions.

Btw, an ad hominem may not be an attack - it may be merely a class of argument, and perfectly legitimate in the circumstances. Sometimes in all charity and prudence the best response is to tell a fellow that he doesn't know what he is talking about, for his own good or the good of others. That is, by definition, an ad hominem but not an attack if done respectfully and sweetly.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon May 22, 2006 10:09 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:18 pm
Posts: 12
Location: London, England
New post charity
If Abba is offended by clergy's not being called father or bishop, then he/she should steer clear of most other fora about subjects as these, many of which I have been banned from (though not for rudeness)!

We should, of course, always be charitable, but we also need to be robust, particularly in discussion. Liberals sometimes use accusations of uncharitableness to get them out a fix when they realise that a Catholic is winning an argument. My dread is that a good point could be challenged or even scrubbed because of a lapse in nomenclature, which would be a waste of a possibly interesting opinion. After all, all posts, including this one, are candidates for fraternal correction by fellow-members.

Satan was, I believe, once a beautiful angel but few of us refer to him with the respect due to his former celestial office. Cranmer was once a valid Catholic bishop, but do I commit a sin against charity by using only his surname just then? In a way, clergy who embrace Vatican 2 sin more than layfolk because the former are supposed to be experts on what it is to be Catholic. I, for one, would say "Ratzinger" but don't think it necessary to add an insulting epithet; his own actions suffice!

Elsewhere I refer to the so-called Pope Michael as Mr Bawden. I don't call him Mr to insult him but because I think he's a layman. I do use the Mr to maintain some sort of civility, even though we may disagree. He, on his forum, has at least once referred to me by my surname alone, but I don't think he meant to be rude, nor do I take it amiss.

If I make a mistaken point on the forum, it surely is enough to prove me wrong by argument. To call me an idiot or question my motives might actually rebound on the person doing that. And I don't need others' help to demonstrate my ignorance!

In sum, may I appeal for both charity and robustness.

PS Imagine a forum without emoticons. Now that would be an achievement. :lol:


Tue May 23, 2006 11:40 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Philly
New post respect and charity
John yes, i do agree depending on the circumstances, as for example referring the so called Pius XIII and Fr Pulvermacher or Mr. Pulvermacher as the situation warrants.


Tue May 23, 2006 6:13 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:15 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Eastern MA, USA
New post Re: respect and charity
xcordeeclesiae wrote:
as for example referring the so called Pius XIII and Fr Pulvermacher or Mr. Pulvermacher as the situation warrants.


I can definately see the need not calling such a claimant by "Pius XIII" (for example) this may confuse the innocent reader who may not know his popes. Using such a name could be dangerous if the context is misread or misunderstood, and could cause scandal in many ways.


Thu May 25, 2006 8:04 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:26 am
Posts: 7
New post 
Differences amongst sedevacantists do exist, and that is indicative of how confusing these times are and how necessary it is to have a Supreme Pontiff reigning the Church.

The one difference amongst sedevacantists that has caused most confusion and animosity is that which has to do with Baptism of Blood and Desire. Rare are the times, and I mean really rare, wherein I have seen this matter dealt with serenity and charity. Both sides have unfortunately said that such and such Catholics are heretics and such and such people are outside of the Church, and some clergy have even denied people the Sacraments on this account. I am counting the days until Matatics will be declared a heretic and outside the Church because of his ties to the Dimond Brothers. It is unfortunate.

Why can't we wait for a Pope who will settle this issue, instead of causing more confusion. Why must we re-create the story of Abel and Cain?

Both sides are to blame for this situation.

Those are just my thoughts.


Fri May 26, 2006 3:43 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Super flumina Babylonis wrote:
Why can't we wait for a Pope who will settle this issue, instead of causing more confusion. Why must we re-create the story of Abel and Cain?

Both sides are to blame for this situation.

Those are just my thoughts.


We can't wait for a pope to settle matters which the popes already effectively settled by not condemning what the approved theologians were teaching for centuries.

Yes, we should be charitable. Yes, that includes warning the faithful against charlatans. Yes, you are riddled with pride if you think that Holy Mother Church didn't have a sound theologian for a thousand years or more until Fr. Feeney came along. Or perhaps you don't have the use of reason. Either way, we won't be discussing whether we all have a guardian angel, on the grounds that this truth has never been solemnly defined, and we won't be discussing other truths taught by all of the theologians on the same grounds.

If such truths are open to discussion, then we might as well all go to the Novus Ordo, which is the kind of "church" which has "popes" which teach dangerous errors when they forget to turn the "infallibility button" on, and whose theologians are all to be disreguarded in favour of some self-selected lay theologians (e.g. The Wanderer or The Remnant), etc.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 26, 2006 4:54 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:26 am
Posts: 7
New post 
John Lane wrote:
We can't wait for a pope to settle matters which the popes already effectively settled by not condemning what the approved theologians were teaching for centuries.

Yes, we should be charitable. Yes, that includes warning the faithful against charlatans. Yes, you are riddled with pride if you think that Holy Mother Church didn't have a sound theologian for a thousand years or more until Fr. Feeney came along. Or perhaps you don't have the use of reason. Either way, we won't be discussing whether we all have a guardian angel, on the grounds that this truth has never been solemnly defined, and we won't be discussing other truths taught by all of the theologians on the same grounds.

If such truths are open to discussion, then we might as well all go to the Novus Ordo, which is the kind of "church" which has "popes" which teach dangerous errors when they forget to turn the "infallibility button" on, and whose theologians are all to be disreguarded in favour of some self-selected lay theologians (e.g. The Wanderer or The Remnant), etc.


Dear Mr. Lane:

I respectfully disgree with you, as I not-so-respectfully disagree with the apotheosis of Father Feeney.

Charlatans are to be found on both sides unfortunately.


Fri May 26, 2006 5:19 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
I don’t see how the “Feeneyism issue” is in any way tied to a discussion of differences between Sedevacantists. True, both hold to some sort of sedevacantist position, but the issue of BOD exists outside the sedevacantist argument. I agree that there is no need to discuss it at all…and there is infinitely less reason to discuss it within the context of a discussion about the differences between Sedevacantist positions. Denial of BOD is not an issue of sedevacantism.


Sat May 27, 2006 1:34 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Dear Robert,

This is quite right. And in fact, the Feeneyite errors are in one sense Novus Ordo errors. The Feeneyite response to V2 was underwhelming, to say the least. The reason, I think, is that these people had learned not to trust the Church before V2, so that the rash of error after V2 was irrelevant to them - it was like, "Who cares what Rome does or says anyway?" And yet, ironically, they adopted the Novus Ordo Missae and didn't bother protesting most of what came out of V2 (It didn't matter, you know, because there was this big heresy - BOD - which we all needed to focus on). They have since the 'seventies generally been dragged back to Tradition in most things by the example of the SSPX and the rest of the traditional Catholics, but it is a great mistake to imagine that the St. Benedict Center, for example, has been "traditional" right through. Far from it.

If you read what the Dimond brother wrote in the other thread, you see a couple of interesting features (apart from the failure to address the argument put and the failure to submit to Ven. Pius IX's authority). These features are the quoting of post-V2 theologians as authorities, and the arrogant dismissal of the common consensus of theologians as neither here nor there. Both features illustrate a mindset which has divorced itself from the body of the faithful and is independent and alone.

It is difficult to imagine what kind of "church" these people believe in, if it isn't the V2 church in which one cannot trust "the pope" nor his approved theologians, or any of the bishops, and in which most of the "faithful" believe whatever they like, so that there is no unity of faith and no mechanism by which it could conceivably have been protected anyway, short of innumerable infallible pronouncements on every theological nuance which a creative and proud mind could conceive of. You can imagine how it would work - a kind of daily papal audience in which Cardinal Dimond approaches the Holy Father with the latest theological speculations and demands infallible pronouncements on each of them for immediate electronic distribution to the seminaries and other institutes of learning. Talk about tempting God!

And yet, ironically again, they want others to listen to their own non-infallible preaching, and certainly don't like it when they are treated as they treat the bulk of pre-V2 theologians - that is, with at best gentle disdain. Apparently it is a question of, "Do unto us as we don't do unto others."

As a result of these considerations I have been waiting for the day when these intelligent but misguided men realise that they need something to bolster their authority and declare themselves "prophets" of some kind, directly sent by God to the remnant faithful in the latter days. Any other approach is simply inconcistent and in fact hypocritical.

It is also strange and novel to see "sedevacantist Feeneyites" appear these last few years. The Feeneyoite attitude to the sede vacante thesis was always, "if one doesn't care what the pope teaches, unless he speaks ex cathedra, then what does it matter whether the current claimant is genuine or not?" I could haul numerous examples of such an attitude by Feeneyites from my email archives, going back almost ten years. It would be of mild historical interest to discover whom the first "sedevacantist Feeneyite" actually was.

Sadly, those who are newer to Tradition don't realise how novel these things are, and are thus more easily taken in by them.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat May 27, 2006 3:13 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
John:

Having stumbled across a “Feenyite” website several years ago (I knew nothing of them at the time), I had difficulty determining exactly why they were opposed to the idea of BOD.

Could it be that some very intelligent individuals are so “scandalized” by the idea of invincible ignorance that they forget that culpable ignorance is probably more likely for most people…invincible ignorance is certainly possible…but not as likely. It is as if they see BOD as being taught as a replacement for the Sacraments of the Church…a justification for Protestantism.

The following are just my own thoughts at the time I considered the claim of the “Feenyites” and not meant to instruct anyone:

A catechumen may want to be baptized immediately but the Church requires that he complete some instruction before that is allowed…so this catechumen dies prior to his baptism…he was fulfilling the requirements of the Church (as God wants him to); he was doing what a good Catholic would do. Why did he die before his scheduled day of Baptism? Divine Providence required it…do we understand why…no; we do not…do we accept it…yes; we must…just as the catechumen must and did accept the fact that he would need to follow the Church’s instructions.

So the Church teaches that this catechumen dies with the desire of Baptism and is therefore justified in God’s eyes…as a Catholic, it seems quite odd to me to have a problem with this.


Sat May 27, 2006 4:18 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 5:00 pm
Posts: 7
Location: Texas
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Dear Robert,

This is quite right. And in fact, the Feeneyite errors are in one sense Novus Ordo errors. The Feeneyite response to V2 was underwhelming, to say the least. The reason, I think, is that these people had learned not to trust the Church before V2, so that the rash of error after V2 was irrelevant to them - it was like, "Who cares what Rome does or says anyway?" And yet, ironically, they adopted the Novus Ordo Missae and didn't bother protesting most of what came out of V2 (It didn't matter, you know, because there was this big heresy - BOD - which we all needed to focus on). They have since the 'seventies generally been dragged back to Tradition in most things by the example of the SSPX and the rest of the traditional Catholics, but it is a great mistake to imagine that the St. Benedict Center, for example, has been "traditional" right through. Far from it.


Eh?

Actually the bod/bob heresy propogated today is more akin to the novus ordo church since the novus ordo religion believes in universal salvation and uses the bob/bod to further its goals.

And John, you have to be honest with yourself, that the current propogation of bob/bod definition is nothing even close to what any saint who theorized about it would embrace.

Listen to A.Lefebvre propogate a heresy: "There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

Now desiring a sacrament isn't even required. Like Archbishop Lefebvre one has only to be a good person in his own religion (which would have to include satanists since lefeb never specified) and somehow he may still attain heaven.

Robert

_________________
I am not Robert Sungenis.
He is better looking.


Sun May 28, 2006 10:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 18
Location: New York New York
New post Re: Differences Among Sedevacantists Do Exist
Abba wrote:
.

This particular priest was ordained in 1976 by a Bishop; who himself was ordained Bishop in 1951. The Bishop was obviously ordained in the Traditional Rite of episcopal ordination, but the priest was ordained in the new Rite of priestly ordination. However, this priest offers only the Tridentine Mass, although he is not a sedevacantist in his theological position. I might not agree with a certain priest's attitudes, or methods, or views, but I would never call him by his last name, nor without his priestly title of "Father" or "Reverend."


The above is a thorny issue. Based upon the opinions of many of our unquestionably Catholic Bishops and priests, who back up their opinions with extensive research, it seems that there are grave doubts about the validity of a priest ordained as late as 1976. Does he really have the powers of the priesthood? I would pray that such priests would approach a traditional Bishop to be conditionally re-ordained. This has nothing to do with whether or not he holds to the sede-vacantist position.

_________________
The expense is reckoned, the Enterprise is begun. It is of God, it cannot be withstood--so the Faith was planted, so must it be restored


Sun May 28, 2006 10:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
“Actually the bod/bob heresy propogated today is more akin to the novus ordo church since the novus ordo religion believes in universal salvation and uses the bob/bod to further its goals.”

This quote illustrates the point I was trying to make. JPII did not refer to BOB/BOD to “teach” his heresy of universal salvation because it does not support the idea of universal salvation. That the author of the above comment would suggest that it does is curious; this exposes his ignorance of the origin and “reasoning” behind JPII’s novel “teaching” of universal salvation.

One only need refer to Pope St. Pius X’s comments on both invincible ignorance and culpable ignorance to understand this.


Mon May 29, 2006 3:07 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 18
Location: New York New York
New post Re: charity
Paul Danon wrote:

We should, of course, always be charitable, but we also need to be robust, particularly in discussion. Liberals sometimes use accusations of uncharitableness to get them out a fix when they realise that a Catholic is winning an argument. My dread is that a good point could be challenged or even scrubbed because of a lapse in nomenclature, which would be a waste of a possibly interesting opinion. After all, all posts, including this one, are candidates for fraternal correction by fellow-members.

Satan was, I believe, once a beautiful angel but few of us refer to him with the respect due to his former celestial office. Cranmer was once a valid Catholic bishop, but do I commit a sin against charity by using only his surname just then? In a way, clergy who embrace Vatican 2 sin more than layfolk because the former are supposed to be experts on what it is to be Catholic. I, for one, would say "Ratzinger" but don't think it necessary to add an insulting epithet; his own actions suffice!

Elsewhere I refer to the so-called Pope Michael as Mr Bawden. I don't call him Mr to insult him but because I think he's a layman. I do use the Mr to maintain some sort of civility, even though we may disagree. He, on his forum, has at least once referred to me by my surname alone, but I don't think he meant to be rude, nor do I take it amiss.

If I make a mistaken point on the forum, it surely is enough to prove me wrong by argument. To call me an idiot or question my motives might actually rebound on the person doing that. And I don't need others' help to demonstrate my ignorance!

In sum, may I appeal for both charity and robustness.


Well said! (I just love that British style.)

I agree wholeheartedly with the above. Luther is another example; do we refer to him as Father Luther? Ratzinger, Wojtyla and their ilk are/were priests and/or bishops, but their turning from the Faith and the evil they have done in destroying others' faith puts them in the same class as Luther and Cranmer (and Lucifer for that matter). Unlike the priesthood, the Papacy is not a holy order so there's certainly nothing wrong in referring to, for example, "Fr. Lucien Pulvermacher who claims the title of Pius XIII".

Now it does get a little dicey in the case of Father Gruner, who is apparently very Catholic, very pious and most devoted to our Lady. Unfortunately due to being ordained in the novus ordo rite there is doubt as to whether he truly has priestly powers. But in talking about him, I wouldn't forego the title. Perhaps "Reverend" would be more appropriate. I hope one day Rev. Gruner goes the distance and gets conditionally re-ordained.

Here's to charity and robustness, and the occasional emoticon. 8)

PS: Why do the British leave out the period after "Mr." ?

_________________
The expense is reckoned, the Enterprise is begun. It is of God, it cannot be withstood--so the Faith was planted, so must it be restored


Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:38 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Kansas City, USA
New post Re: Differences Among Sedevacantists Do Exist
Abba wrote:
Dear John, (I really must direct this to you) Pax et Bonum.

I have noticed that in our membership those who are writing do seem to differ a bit in their views as sedevacantists. This would be expected and can be appreciated -- with Charity.

It is very important to me that this virtue of charitable writing be chief among all of us. I have noticed that there is reference to a priest without his title of "Father," and even calling him by his last name only. This disturbs me because if this will be the standard, expected way of writing from our position - which must be approached with "fear and trembling" (as in all things regarding working out our salvation), I would find it difficult to continue as part of this forum.

In the MOST Sacred Heart of Jesus, Ardith


Hello Ardith,
I am confused. I grew up in the Novus Ordo and was accustomed to calling priests "Fr. Bob", for the most part, instead of by their last name; once we converted over to Tradition and started going to our SSPX parish, however, we only call priests "Fr." and their last name. Do most other traditional Catholics call their priests by their first and last names? Or are we only talking about when we're writing about a priest?

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

_________________
"I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament. There you will find romance, glory, honor, fidelity and the true way of all your loves upon earth." -J.R.R. Tolkien


Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:15 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post Calling priests by their title
Image
Corinne wrote:

Quote:
Hello Ardith,
I am confused. I grew up in the Novus Ordo and was accustomed to calling priests "Fr. Bob", for the most part, instead of by their last name; once we converted over to Tradition and started going to our SSPX parish, however, we only call priests "Fr." and their last name. Do most other traditional Catholics call their priests by their first and last names? Or are we only talking about when we're writing about a priest?


Dear Corinne, Pax et Bonum.

Thanks for the well-put question. In response to your query, yes, I too as a former N.O.-ite would sometimes call a priest "Fr. Firstname" because USUALLY the priest so requested this. I was never never comfortable with this because of the sacred character of priesthood. But the initial question I posed to John Lane, our good and fearless Administrator, was that one of our dear members was calling Father Gruner, whom I highly respect as a stalwart fighter for the rights of Our Lady of Fatima in her request for the consecration of Russia by name in union with all the bishops (never been done!), by his last name. This did not seem respectful to me. However, it has been pointed out that when one is writing scholarly responses it is not unusual to use the last name after FIRST identifying the priest by his title and full name. I can now see this would be appropriate.

Then the discussion got into what to call those who have doubtful Orders due to the changes (by Bugnini again!) in the Rite of episcopal and priestly ordination Rites. These changes began for Bishops in 1968 and for priests in (when?). Thus some of our members call these men of doubtful ordination by their lay names, thus rejecting their claim of valid ordination. Again, understandable.

As for myself, because the priesthood is an INDELIBLE mark/character upon the soul of a priest (even priests who are in Hell for their Mortal sins still have this eternal mark of priesthood (I suppose the same as Satan has his same brilliant mind, although now totally corrupted in evil, it's original beauty entirely gone), I continue to call Josef Ratzinger as Father Ratzinger. Because he clearly is heterodox, however, I do not believe he has the office of Bishop, Cardinal nor Pope because Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (Pope Pius IV's Bull), teaches that a heretic may not assume ANY office of the church because he is no longer Catholic - another discussion subject.. . .).

I hope this answers your question. Sorry if my writing confused you, Corinne. I myself am somewhat confused over some issues that bear so much weight for Faithful Catholics. This wonderful, respectful, charitable but "vigorous" forum is a great help, isn't it? Where else can one ask all those "dumb" questions that a newer Traditionalist (and for me a newer sedevacantist) needs answered to have peace of mind and soul, assured that he/she remains truly a Catholic and has not veered off onto the wider path! Give me the straight and narrow please. I want us all to be together in Heaven one fine day - and at the rate our society is degrading, that could be sooner than later.


During the month of June, consecrated to The Most Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ, pierced through for our salvation, may we be inspired to become more and more faithful to Our Saviour, who gives Himself to us in the Most Blessed Sacrament, while we are not worthy for so great a Sacrament -- but He is - worthy!

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Fri Jun 02, 2006 6:48 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post Re: Calling priests by their title
Abba wrote:
I continue to call Josef Ratzinger as Father Ratzinger. Because he clearly is heterodox, however, I do not believe he has the office of Bishop, Cardinal nor Pope because Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (Pope Pius IV's Bull), teaches that a heretic may not assume ANY office of the church because he is no longer Catholic - another discussion subject.. . .).


The reason people do not call Ratzinger "Bishop" has to do with their belief that the new rite of episcopal consecration is invalid. A man can be a bishop, yet not hold the office thereof - trad bishops being in exactly this position.

Even if it were universally accepted that Ratizinger held no office, he would still be rightly called "Bishop", if his episcopal consecration were valid.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:50 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post Re: Calling priests by their title
Eamon Shea wrote:
Abba wrote:
I continue to call Josef Ratzinger as Father Ratzinger. Because he clearly is heterodox, however, I do not believe he has the office of Bishop, Cardinal nor Pope because Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (Pope Pius IV's Bull), teaches that a heretic may not assume ANY office of the church because he is no longer Catholic - another discussion subject.. . .).


The reason people do not call Ratzinger "Bishop" has to do with their belief that the new rite of episcopal consecration is invalid. A man can be a bishop, yet not hold the office thereof - trad bishops being in exactly this position.

Even if it were universally accepted that Ratizinger held no office, he would still be rightly called "Bishop", if his episcopal consecration were valid.


CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO -

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]: that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:

(i) the clergy, secular and religious;

(ii) the laity;

(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;

(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).

To the greater confusion, moreover, of those thus promoted or elevated, if these shall have wished to prolong their government and authority, they shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated; nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties.

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:09 am
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
I know what Cum ex says, my lady. It has no bearing upon whether or not a man possesses the powers of the episcopacy. Just as a priest is a priest forever, even if he should apostatize and rot in hell for all eternity, so does a validly consecrated bishop remain so - even if he is consecrated illicitly (as is the case of the so-called Orthodox), or falls from office.

The powers of the episcopacy, and the office, are two different things.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:22 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
The powers of the episcopacy, and the office, are two different things.


Yes, and the word "bishop" tends to imply the possession of both.

Consequently many refuse that title to Modernists, even if they have valid orders.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:44 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Consequently many refuse that title to Modernists, even if they have valid orders.


And they do so incorrectly. As to what the word "bishop" implies, I cannot speak with any certainty. All I know is that if you have the powers of the episcopacy, you are a bishop; even if you do not possess any office within Holy Church. Likewise, if you have the powers of the priesthood, you are a priest - regardless of whether or not you possess any official office in the Church.

If this were untrue, we would not call Bishop Sanborn, et alii, "bishops"; nor would we do so with the entire episcopacy of those in schism.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:09 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.