It is currently Thu May 25, 2017 10:44 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
 Another red herring "una cum" argument 
Author Message

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:00 pm
Posts: 8
New post 
""Therefore where commemorations are customarily made in the sacred liturgy, the Roman Pontiff should be first commemorated, then one's own bishop and patriarch, provided they are Catholic. But if either or both of them are schismatic or heretic they should by no means be commemorated." Certainly this is in full agreement with the decrees passed at the meeting of the Congrgation on May 1, 1746, which We approved and confirmed." Benedict XIV

and

"But however it may be with this disputed point of ecclesiastical learning, it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the Supreme Pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognises him as the head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the successor of Blessed Peter," Benedict XIV

and

""Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligur. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist.19. But the sacred canons of the Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2, and chap. Sacris on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass." Benedict XIV

It is forbisdden for a priest to offer, publicly, the Sacrifice of the Mass, for a heretic. If a Catholic were to ask a priest for a Mass for the soul of a deceased Non-Catholic releative such a Mass would have to be a private Mass.

Bouscaren and Ellis state: An excommunicated person cannot share in the public prayers of the Church. However the faithful are not forbidden to pray for him privately; nor are priests forbidden to apply Masses for him privately, provided that scandal be avoided; but if he is a vitandus, Mass can only be offered for his conversion.

The distinction between 'for' and 'together with' is a total red herring. Personally I believe it is both.

Emily


Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:58 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post 
Emily wrote:
The distinction between 'for' and 'together with' is a total red herring. Personally I believe it is both.


The opinions of young ladies, despite their evident grace and charm, are irrelevant. Several dozen scholars make a distinction. The distinction is real.

Now, it was people who were attempting to prove your own sacrament-scarcifying position who made a big deal out of the (erroneous and now I hope finally discredited) interpretation of the "una cum" clause. I agree, and have always agreed, that it is a red herring. A pulsating scarlet whale, even. Thank you for disagreeing with all of that nonsense.

Nothing you have written would be grounds for avoiding Holy Mass, even if it were true that uncondemned heretics are treated by the law of the Church in the same manner as condemned heretics are treated, which they most certainly are not. You might conceivably have thought you had proved that hundreds of traditional priests are very naughty. But that won't suffice. We may, believe it or not, assist at the Mass of a naughty priest. I have myself assisted at a Mass offered by Fr. Cekada, for example, and I happen to know that he, like all of us naughty people, avails himself of the Sacrament of Penance from time to time.

But if you think that you have some grounds for avoiding the Mass in which an uncondemned heretic is named, please do so.

I am intimately familiar with Benedict XIV's "Ex quo." I believe I was the first traditional Catholic writer to cite in in relation to these questions. You might recall (since you must have read it given your strong opinions about the matters it contains) that in my article on this subject I wrote,
Quote:
Benedict XIV teaches, “…a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognises him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity.”[28]

Recalling St. Thomas’s eternal principle, “…in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental", we apply it to this teaching of Benedict XIV. The only possible conclusion is that when a priest inserts John Paul II’s name in the Sacred Canon in the mistaken belief that he is the pope, this is “the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity.” To call it, on the contrary, schism, is simply to miss the point.


You appear to have missed the point.

I encourage you strongly to re-read the entire article, because I develop in great detail the law of the Church on this question, and despite energetic excavation, there is nothing there to be concerned about. The article is here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/una_cum.html

In the mean time, ponder the attitude expounded by St. Thomas Aquinas, who was at least as concerned about the purity of the Holy Catholic Church as you. “I reply that doubt as to whether certain persons are excommunicated either precedes the sentence of the judges or else follows it. If it comes before, for instance when it has not yet been declared by the consensus of the judges that certain persons are excommunicated, they are not to be avoided until the matter has been closed by definitive judgment. For in this case it is true that we ought to follow the milder interpretation. Hence Deuteronomy 17:8 says: If thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment…and thou see that the words of the judges within thy gates do vary…thou shalt come to the priests and to the judge…and thou shalt ask of them…and thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say.”

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:19 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:00 pm
Posts: 8
New post 
But we are not talking just of the excommunicated but of heretics and schismatics and, of course, St Thomas was not writing in times such as these. The situation is not to, nor can ever, be compared to the situation that St Thomas envisaged, and to disregard this point is to miss the point altogether.


Emily


Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:42 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post 
Emily,

I have deleted your other post.

Please try again more politely.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:50 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:06 am
Posts: 63
New post 
Emily wrote:

It is forbisdden for a priest to offer, publicly, the Sacrifice of the Mass, for a heretic. If a Catholic were to ask a priest for a Mass for the soul of a deceased Non-Catholic releative such a Mass would have to be a private Mass.




Emily,

So this is your argument:

It is forbidden for a priest to offer, publicly, the Sacrifice of the Mass, for a heretic. Therefore, we cannot attend such a public mass.


There are quite a few major flaws in your argument, A VERY DIFFERENT ONE, from the one that Fr. Cekada makes, and from the one Chris Browne makes. My question is why didn't Fr. Cekada notice this argument and present it instead on the other one about scandal and stuff? This speaks volumes. After all, he is a very learned priest, and who are you?

Is there no UNITY between the anti-una-cum people? Can't y'all just find one argument, one with substance, and agree on it???

How many more "moles" are there in this game, anyway? :-)


I haven't the time to deal with ALL the flaws in your argument, so I'll just deal with a couple that I see at first glance. Maybe someone else can help out with the rest.


Firstly: We will take it you mean by heretic, Benedict XVI? Is that right?

Did you know that the commemoration of the Pope (the una cum clause), is NOT who the mass is being offered for publicly? Your argument is worthless. It is based on a false premise.

However, implicit in this error, is at least the admission that the una cum means "PRAYING FOR". And so something good has been gained from this discussion. As this was the sole point of this thread.



Secondly: For the sake of your new argument, even if the Mass WERE being offered publicly for a heretic, the church is talking about CONDEMNED HERETICS. So, again, your argument (even if it were to be a legitimate one) is worthless. It is based on your lack of understanding of the difference between a condemned and an uncondemned heretic. John Daly has written well on this subject.

Do you think think you know the difference between a condemned and uncondemned heretic. Please explain it for us.

All this does is demonstrate very clearly to me why Father Cekada did NOT use this argument!!!

_________________
JRM


Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:20 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post 
Emily wrote:
But we are not talking just of the excommunicated but of heretics and schismatics and, of course, St Thomas was not writing in times such as these. The situation is not to, nor can ever, be compared to the situation that St Thomas envisaged, and to disregard this point is to miss the point altogether.


Emily


Emily,

1. St. Thomas teaches that the reason we are obliged to avoid heretics is because they are excommunicated.
2. After the time of St. Thomas, the law was relaxed by Pope Martin V to permit us to assist at Mass offered even by an uncondemned heretic.

As Jake has pointed out, it is because Fr. Cekada knows the law of the Church that he doesn't put this novel argument of yours. It's entirely without value, I'm pleased to be able to tell you, so unless you find yourself the victim of some other argument you will be delighted to know that you can now obtain Holy Mass and the sacraments much more frequently. Isn't that excellent?

I'm sure that you are also very happy to realise that your reluctant and personally very painful judgement that most traditional priests are blatantly disobeying the law of the Church is also without foundation, so that you can now with great relief and pleasure begin thinking well of them as you really desire. I'm confident that this will give you great joy, as no Christian likes to think ill of others, particularly not self-sacrificing traditional priests who do so much for souls at such great cost to themselves. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
In his reply to Emily, John Lane said:

Quote:
But if you think that you have some grounds for avoiding the Mass in which an uncondemned heretic is named, please do so.


Would it be a sin to do so?


Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:31 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post 
Chris Browne wrote:
Would it be a sin to do so?


Dear Chris,

Glad to see you've calmed down. But if you really don't value the forums, as you suggested in your previous post, then please just depart quietly. Whatever you do, please don't remain post comments like the ones you posted before.

No, it wouldn't be a sin to think that you could not go to an "una cum" Mass. You've no grounds whatsoever for wondering that, of course, because nothing that has been written by me or those who agree with me would suggest that we criticise those who are misled on this. We all think, "live and let live."

The aggressors are the anti-una cum people. Emily is an aggressor. Fr. Cekada is an aggressor. Their position is not that they merely decline to attend Mass offered by sedeplenist priests. No, no, no. Their position is that YOU and I and OTHERS ought not to do so. They are concerned to stamp this impiety out. This "impiety" that Fr. Cekada was approving of only a few years ago. This "impious" desire to assist at Holy Mass offered by a Catholic priest who resists Vatican II (but fails to agree with our superior judgements about the ecclesiastical status of Benedict XVI, the cad!).

I have no criticism of you whatsoever if you fall victim to this nonsense. I feel sorry for you. The only criticism I have is of those who decide that others shall not have the supernatural benefits they presently enjoy. My purpose is entirely, purely, defensive.

I hope this is clear.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:34 am
Profile E-mail
New post 
Dear John, It is clear to me, and I thank you. I know that you and Jake have explained it over and over, but some of us need to get things several different ways before we understand. So, as long as anyone has the patience to rebut the mistake, I'd say , "keep up the good work".


Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:10 am

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 am
Posts: 138
New post 
John Lane wrote:
My purpose is entirely, purely, defensive.


I agree.

There could very well be some scenarios in which attendance at Mass (any Mass, for that matter) is outweighed by other more serious considerations. If someone chooses not to attend an SSPX Mass, I accept that they have their reasons and don't try to talk them out of it unless they initiate discussion. The really fortunate thing is that we only have to worry about our own, individual circumstances and apply our decision to ourselves. We don't have to worry about the possible sin of anyone except ourselves. What a relief! I'm overworked and underpaid as it is :)

I am only interested in defending my decision to attend SSPX Masses when it is attacked. Of course, I should love to persuade those who are deprived of the Mass and sacraments, due to a misunderstanding of the principles, to delve a little deeper into the question, but this is only because I wish them well. But even "wishing them well" must know it's place. Prayer I think is the most effective "persuasion" tactic of all.

AMW


Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:28 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Quote:
Nothing you have written would be grounds for avoiding Holy Mass, even if it were true that uncondemned heretics are treated by the law of the Church in the same manner as condemned heretics are treated, which they most certainly are not. You might conceivably have thought you had proved that hundreds of traditional priests are very naughty. But that won't suffice. We may, believe it or not, assist at the Mass of a naughty priest. I have myself assisted at a Mass offered by Fr. Cekada, for example, and I happen to know that he, like all of us naughty people, avails himself of the Sacrament of Penance from time to time.


and

Quote:
1. St. Thomas teaches that the reason we are obliged to avoid heretics is because they are excommunicated.
2. After the time of St. Thomas, the law was relaxed by Pope Martin V to permit us to assist at Mass offered even by an uncondemned heretic.


and JakeRM said:

Quote:
Secondly: For the sake of your new argument, even if the Mass WERE being offered publicly for a heretic, the church is talking about CONDEMNED HERETICS. So, again, your argument (even if it were to be a legitimate one) is worthless. It is based on your lack of understanding of the difference between a condemned and an uncondemned heretic. John Daly has written well on this subject.

Do you think think you know the difference between a condemned and uncondemned heretic. Please explain it for us.


Both make the distinction between condemned and uncondemned heretics, although JakeRM is referring to the subject of the prayer, and not the person making the prayer, but the distinction is made, nevertheless.

However, in the Sedes Assisting at B16’s Traditional Mass thread:

John Lane
Quote:
It is unlawful to cooperate in sacred matters with heretics. Benedict is a heretic. Ergo.


JakeRM
Quote:
You seem to be rather ill-informed for a sedevacantist. For example, are you not aware of the crucial difference between Benedict XVI and an SSPX priest? Benedict is a heretic.


Has there been a trial that I might have missed?


Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:29 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
John,

You wrote:
Quote:
Glad to see you've calmed down. But if you really don't value the forums, as you suggested in your previous post, then please just depart quietly. Whatever you do, please don't remain post comments like the ones you posted before.


I was never upset. I never said I didn't value the forums, nor did I suggest that notion. I will go quietly. There was nothing wrong with those posts, and certainly nothing that matches some of the discourse I've seen occasionally from a few others on this forum which is, apparently, tolerable to an extent that pushes the envelope. I am very conscious of the need to avoid personal attacks, specifically. If someone does take something I say personally, I would apologize for the offense.

Quote:
No, it wouldn't be a sin to think that you could not go to an "una cum" Mass


I just needed to hear where you stood. It was a legitimate and respectful question. And I don't think those attending una cum Masses (for want of a better term) are heretical or schismatic or otherwise 'sinning'. (They could be - we all could be - but not because of this issue.) I have never said that I did. I do, however, think that compromises and inconsistencies can quickly gather steam and begin multiplying.

Quote:
The only criticism I have is of those who decide that others shall not have the supernatural benefits they presently enjoy.


I have never advocated denying supernatural benefits to oneself or others. Ever. All of us need as much grace as we can get, or we'll never get through this period. And I think the purpose of Father Cekada's concern (I think many are taking 'grave consequences' too narrowly) is that of a priest with the true heart of a shepherd.

Quote:
I hope this is clear.


As clear as Foster's. :lol:

Chris Browne


Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:04 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post 
Chris Browne wrote:
John Lane wrote:
It is unlawful to cooperate in sacred matters with heretics. Benedict is a heretic. Ergo.


Has there been a trial that I might have missed?


Great pick-up. :)

I distinguish:

It is contrary to ecclesiastical law to cooperate in sacred matters with condemned heretics.

It is contrary to divine law to cause scandal or to enter into occasions in which one risks perversion. Cooperation in sacred matters with un-condemned heretics may involve either or both of these factors (scandal or danger of perversion).

But this is a general law requiring application by the prudent individual. There is no blanket rule which may be framed so as to cover every case as though they were all uniform. They aren't. This is why it is sometimes said by authors that we must avoid heretics, without qualification, and why on other occasiosn the distinctions here are made. If you have access to a library see if you can get hold of Canon Mahoney in "Priests' Problems" - 1957 - #295 - Reception of Sacraments from a Non-Catholic Minister, in which these principles are developed in detail.

Of course, this is all irrelevant because there is no question of assistance at the Mass of a heretic. SSPX priests are Catholics.

So, to explain my position more completely:

This prudent individual would not assist at the Mass of Benedict because he is a heretic, in the judgement of this individual, and this individual considers that there would be scandal and possibly danger of perversion, and would therefore not consider himself at liberty to assist. Plus, this individual's stomach would churn in that heretic's presence.

Make sense? If it doesn't, then please see if you can extract an explanation from Fr. Cekada. I'm sure he agrees with this.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:07 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:06 am
Posts: 63
New post 
Chris

I can see now John Lane's posts were contradictory, full thanks to you - and he has explained that contradiction. Good catch!

I see no contradiction in my posts you've quoted because they are about two different points. I won't go into an unnecessary explanation, unless you've picked up a contradiction in my words that I can't see. Enlighten me. :?

_________________
JRM


Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:49 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:06 am
Posts: 63
New post 
Chris Browne wrote:
If someone does take something I say personally, I would apologize for the offense.


You've already demonstrated, and admirably so, that you are capable of doing a superb job of such thing. For what it's worth I can see how a Forum Admin. (and members) could take exception to insulting comments about his forum. Don' want to get into this any more, just my two cents worth.


Quote:
John Lane said:
No, it wouldn't be a sin to think that you could not go to an "una cum" Mass


Quote:
Chris Browne replied: I just needed to hear where you stood. It was a legitimate and respectful question.


Indeed, it was. Also, there were no grounds for thinking otherwise, as far as I can see. Though there are a lot of words being flung about, so I could've easily missed a passing remark. But I've never seen or heard anyone ever intimate such a thing, and if I did catch 'em I'd be the first to pounce. :)



Quote:
And I don't think those attending una cum Masses (for want of a better term) are heretical or schismatic or otherwise 'sinning'. (They could be - we all could be - but not because of this issue.)


Absolutely. We are on the same page here and it's so good to be. :D



Quote:
I have never said that I did.


Agreed - and there would be no valid grounds for thinking otherwise. However, I could see that if someone mistakenly thought you were in agreement with Fr. Cekada's argument against assitance at una-cum masses, where he used grave sin and grave scandal as some of the reasons for avoidance - then it would be understandable if they thought you also were accusing them of sinning. I've never seen you say that you agree with Fr. Cekada's arguments, however, as Greg, the Conversion guy pointed out a lot of people don't really read, hence misconceptions.


Quote:
I do, however, think that compromises and inconsistencies can quickly gather steam and begin multiplying.


Good observation and agreed again. Keeping in mind that this works both ways, and that's warning enough to keep us well and truly on our guard on ALL counts.

_________________
JRM


Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:13 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
JakeRM

This was the statement that prompted the question:

Quote:
John Lane said:
But if you think that you have some grounds for avoiding the Mass in which an uncondemned heretic is named, please do so.


There was someting about the question that seemed to imply that it might be. The, "please do so" leads me to believe it did not (I can't imagine Mr. Lane saying it would be OK to commit a sin), but I had to make sure. I just want to make sure that, if it isn't s sin to attend, it wouldn't be a sin to avoid. Deciding to stay away from Mass is not a matter to be taken lightly.


Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:02 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
JakeRM said:
Quote:
I see no contradiction in my posts you've quoted because they are about two different points. I won't go into an unnecessary explanation, unless you've picked up a contradiction in my words that I can't see. Enlighten me.


No, I even mentioned that you made the distinction between condemned and uncondemned as the object of prayer, not the worthiness of the priest:

Quote:
Both make the distinction between condemned and uncondemned heretics, although JakeRM is referring to the subject of the prayer, and not the person making the prayer, but the distinction is made, nevertheless.


You said earlier in a reply to Sacerdos, however:

JakeRM
Quote:
Quote:
You seem to be rather ill-informed for a sedevacantist. For example, are you not aware of the crucial difference between Benedict XVI and an SSPX priest? Benedict is a heretic.


I was focusing on 'Benedict is a heretic (emphasis mine)" I agree with you, but he is, properly speaking, an uncondemned heretic.

I had an idea what you both meant, but I couldn't resist the opportunity to razz the two of you a little. It was either that, or the infamous 'what the definition of is is' I opted to go with the trial.


Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:16 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4332
New post 
John Lane wrote:
I distinguish:

It is contrary to ecclesiastical law to cooperate in sacred matters with condemned heretics.

It is contrary to divine law to cause scandal or to enter into occasions in which one risks perversion. Cooperation in sacred matters with un-condemned heretics may involve either or both of these factors (scandal or danger of perversion).

But this is a general law requiring application by the prudent individual. There is no blanket rule which may be framed so as to cover every case as though they were all uniform. They aren't. This is why it is sometimes said by authors that we must avoid heretics, without qualification, and why on other occasiosn the distinctions here are made. If you have access to a library see if you can get hold of Canon Mahoney in "Priests' Problems" - 1957 - #295 - Reception of Sacraments from a Non-Catholic Minister, in which these principles are developed in detail.

Of course, this is all irrelevant because there is no question of assistance at the Mass of a heretic. SSPX priests are Catholics.


OK, here is the relevant Mahoney material. My reference was one number out:
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/mahon ... sacr_1.TIF
and http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/mahon ... sacr_2.TIF

If anybody wants to transcribe those into text format, please feel free. :)

Also, you might find this text instructive (also from Mahoney):
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/mahon ... aments.rtf

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:10 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.