Sedevacantism is creeping into the false resistance

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement (Member 149 is Machabees)' started by unbrandable, Jan 24, 2017.

  1. unbrandable

    unbrandable Well-Known Member


    Another sedevacantist “una cum petro” priest may soon join Father Pinaud and Father Rioult inside the USML organization.


    In the following e-mail, Fr. Roy explains to his faithful why a sedevacantist priest, Father Romero (see his website http://integrismo.over-blog.com/), replaced him last Sunday in Beaumont, Quebec, for a Mass that was announced on Fr Roy’s own new website (https://canadafidele.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/visite-de-janvier-ontario-et-quebec/). (Notice that the name of Archbishop Lefebvre is not mentioned once on the website).

    You can read below in point number #4 the following statement: “Personally, I collaborate with Father Pinaud, member of the USML, and I am seriously considering joining this group..."

    He also says in point #5: “The assistance at Masses other than those of Father Pinaud and myself has nothing to do with my ministry, but from decisions that each one takes for himself and his family.” This shows that Fr. Roy does not care about who says Mass for his faithful, and he is putting into practice the advice of Bishop Williamson : do whatever you need to nourish your faith and also you can go to sedevacantist masses.



    Date: 2017-01-21 16:18 GMT-05:00
    Subject: Visite de l'abbé Romero
    To:
    Cc: Pinaud Nicolas

    Chers fidèles,


    comme certains désirent des précisions sur le passage de l’abbé Romero à Lévis, voici quelques points :


    1- Malgré le fait que je n’ai pas l’intention de me prononcer pour ou contre le passage de l’abbé Romero,

    2- Je voudrais préciser que ce n’est pas moi qui ai organisé sa venue.

    3- Que ceux qui ont des questions et aimeraient des précisions sur la position de l’abbé Romero dans la crise actuelle de l’Église s’adressent à lui directement.

    4- Personnellement, je collabore avec l’abbé Pinaud, membre de l’USML et considère sérieusement joindre ce groupe. Je n’ai pas l’intention de persécuter ceux qui tiennent telle ou telle position à l’égard du mystère d’iniquité que nous vivons actuellement, mais n’ai personnellement de lien de collaboration qu’avec les groupes dits de la «Résistance».

    5- L'assistance à des messes autres que celles de l’abbé Pinaud et les miennes ne relève pas de mon ministère, mais des décisions que chacun prend pour lui-même et sa famille.


    Veuillez me garder dans vos prières.


    Dieu vous garde!


    Abbé Pierre Roy

    «Servez le Seigneur dans la joie!» (Psaume 99)
     
  2. Rose

    Rose Guest

    It's like a free-for-all with this that one statement: Do whatever you need to do to nourish your faith.
    When ecumenism and religious liberty rule the day, it becomes buffet-style Catholicism!

    By their fruits, you shall know them....
     
    Scarlet Pimpernel likes this.
  3. unbrandable

    unbrandable Well-Known Member

  4. With Fr. Pierre Roy being a sedevacantist joining the USML, that now makes three public "non una cum" sedevacantists priests being members within the USML (Fr. Rioult and Fr. Pinaud are the other two). See more below:

    Fr. Rioult:
    “In July 2014, in Avrille, Bishop Williamson, in front of about 20 assembled priests,(…), allowed liberty to each one to be ‘una cum’ or ‘non una cum’ at the Canon of the Mass. Dom Thomas Aquinas [now Bishop] was in favor of this liberty and Fr, Altamira also. Fr. Pierre- Marie, prior of Avrille, didn’t make any objection. The only opposition came from Father Pfeiffer. In what concerns the priests of the Union Sacerdotale Marcel Lefebvre, some are ‘una cum’ and others are ‘non una cum.’
    Source: - Discours sur l’Église romaine face à l’apostasie (7/12) Foot note {16}

    http://www.lasapiniere.info/archives/2338

    Also, in April 2016, Father Pinaud said to his “non una cum” group in Quebec that after the last official meeting of the USML at the beginning of February 2016 (see EC 452), a consensus was reached on an important matter. The non una cum position is now an option inside USML. The seminary of Bishop Faure will accept candidates who choose this option and they will be ordained.
    http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?thr...non-una-cum”-seminarians-to-be-ordained.4493/

    As a reminder, Fr. Zendejas also became a new member of USML on Aug. 31, 2016 excepting the agreement, encouragement, and promulgation of the USML "non una cum" masses:

    "The members of the Priestly Union Marcel Lefebvre met on Wednesday 31 August 2016 at the Saint Agobard hermitage in the Basque Country, namely His Excellency Bishop Faure, R.P. Bruno, coordinator, Fathers Pivert, Trincado, Pinaud, Rioult, Salenave. They state that:

    They received a new member in the Priestly Union Marcel Lefebvre, Father Zendejas, ordained in 1988. He left the Society of St. Pius X on September 15, 2014 and is currently ministering in the USA, in the State of New -York."

    https://www.francefidele.org/

    .​
     
  5. Vincent

    Vincent Well-Known Member

    The errors of religious liberty and ecumenism embedded in the Bishop's statement as noted above has its roots in modernism, which as Archbishop Lefebvre emphasized, it not from God but from the devil, for Hell specializes in perversion:

    The Church, in the course of the 1960's, thus during the Council, acquired values that have come from outside the Church, from the liberal culture - due secoli - from two centuries of liberal culture. It is clear: these are the "rights" of man, it is religious freedom, it is ecumenism. It is Satanic.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)

    “The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivismA wholly different version of Revelation, of Faith, of philosophy! Very grave! A total perversion! How we are going to get out of all this, I have no idea, but in any case it is a fact, and as this German theologian shows (who has, I believe, another two parts of his book to write on the Holy Father's thought), it is truly frightening. So, they are no small errors. We are not dealing in trifles. We are into a line of philosophical thinking that goes back to Kant, Descartes, the whole line of modern philosophers who paved the way for the Revolution.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)​
     
  6. From another forum.

    Defender said:

    Looking at these statements of Archbishop Lefebvre (two of which are post-1986), it is clear that the Archbishop did not tolerate sedevacantists.

    1) Statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, November 8, 1979

    “Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters, and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope
    or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid. Certainly, we suffer from this continual incoherence which consists in praising all the Liberal orientations of Vatican II and at the same time straining to mitigate its effects. But all of this must incite us to prayer and to the firm maintenance of Tradition rather than to the affirmation that the Pope is not the Pope.”

    2) Excerpt from Archbishop Lefebvre’s conference in Flavigny, December 1988 – Fideliter March/April 1989

    "So what is our attitude? It is clear that all those who are leaving us or who have left us for sedevacantism
    or because they want to be submitted to the present hierarchy of the Church all the while hoping to keep Tradition, we cannot have relations with them anymore. It is not possible.

    Us, we say that we cannot be submitted to the ecclesiastical authority and keep Tradition. They say the opposite. They are deceiving the faithful. Despite the esteem we may have for them, there is of course no question of insulting them, but we do not want to engage in polemics and we prefer not to deal with them anymore. It is a sacrifice we have to make. But it did not start today, it has been going on for twenty years.

    All those who separate from us, we are very affected by it, but we really cannot make another choice if we want to keep Tradition.We must be free from compromise as much with regard to sedevacantists as with regard to those who absolutely want to be submitted to the ecclesiastical authority.”



    3) Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 79 Jan. – Feb. 1991

    Archbishop Lefebvre: “I have always warned the faithful vis-à -vis the sedevacantists for example. There, also, people say: “The Mass is fine, so we go to it.” ​

    Yes, there is the Mass. That’s fine, but there is also the sermon; there is the atmosphere, the conversations, contacts before and after, which make you little by little, change your ideas. It is therefore a danger and that’s why in general, I think it constitutes part of a whole. One does not merely go to Mass, one frequents a milieu.”


    And-


    Archbishop Lefebvre said that the "non una cum" position was ridiculous (see below). It caused division, it still causes division and it will cause division as long as priests and bishops do not fall in line with the Catholic Church's teaching and the clear path of Archbishop Lefebvre on the matter (see Archbishop Lefebvre's 1990 explanation of the 1981 Oath of Fidelity).


    Archbishop Lefebvre, retreat at St. Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

    Concerning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the "non una cum" sedevacantist error, after the Episcopal consecrations of 1988; here is an excerpt from a conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre during a retreat preached to the sisters of Saint-Michel en Brenne, France, on April 1st, 1989

    “… And then, he [Dom Guillo] goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous…you know, this famous una cum.., una cum of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cum? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel en Brenne). You say una cum in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cum summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer. Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed. "We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope." It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! ​

    Then he [Dom Guillou] had a note about that to clarify a little: "In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Batte, the UNA CUM or "in union with" of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction "and " reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.

    Let us collect the chaff, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be "kept in the holy religion" the "holy orders" and "Apostolic Lord" himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLICUM AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES INSANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS."

    It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? We ask to keep the Pope in the true religion.. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said "There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility". So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.

    Then we must not keep this idea which is false! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, we no longer understand anything, we are completely desperate, we donot know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it."​
     
  7. immaculata

    immaculata Well-Known Member

    What is the purpose of USML? And why arent the people from Danbury or Stella Maris in Tx upset with Fr Zendejas joining a compromised group? Some of His group think that Fr Z is of pure doctrine because he spoke out against BW's new mass error. ( And by the way, spoke out ONLY to them, not publicly) yet Fr Zendejas has no problem accepting the Bishop's "non una cum" position. Where's the outcry from the faithful? I guess we shouldn't be too surprised considering they did mass together at a feeneyite chapel.

    And also, Fr Zendejas's Blue Paper is no longer public. only for select few. Father's reason: So Father Pf. doesnt criticize it.
    Where is Fr Zendejas's leadership in defending the Faith. If Fr Pf says something incorrect about something he wrote, then Fr Z should either debunk it, or correct it or explain himself more clearly for the sake of the faithful. But rather, He will just
    throw Fr Pf's name out there as if Fr Pf is some kind of bully so Fr Pf looks bad and Fr Z remains the good one in their eyes. Of course, that is only for the eyes of those who follow a personality and not for those with eyes to see clearly. Confusion is not of God. And everyone should know by now, if something isnt transparent or kept secret, then there should be real cause for concern. esp when they try to make another priest who hasnt been accused of any doctrinal error , look bad. Typical enemy tactic..
     
    ruthy likes this.
  8. immaculata

    immaculata Well-Known Member

    I hope it is becoming ever so clear for all to see the proof of what our good and holy priests from OLMC have so courageously been repeatedly been warning us about. If you dont attack and kill errors as they occur, the errors will spread like an infectious disease wreaking havoc on those infested with it. And now we can see within the 'false' resistance the errors of the new mass, miracles in the n.o and sedevacantism are all beginning to be accepted by the faithful. Fr Zendejas and and all the other priests in and out of the sspx should realize, by doing nothing about the errors have just made much more confusion and trouble. These priests appear not to understand the war we now find ourselves in. Had they fought the battles along the way, it may not have developed into what it has become. As the ole saying goes "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing". No Compromise with the Faith At All......Period... end of story!
     
    ruthy likes this.
  9. «True or false pope» de John Salza et Robert Siscoe...

    Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (Canon 10):

    "As divine scripture clearly proclaims, Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault, and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?. Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or offices.

    In the same way we command that bishops and priests who are in distant dioceses and regions should behave similarly towards their own metropolitans, and metropolitans should do the same with regard to their own patriarchs. If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled."

    www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum08.htm
    Note: This Canon cannot be evaded on the pretext that it applies to Patriarchs, et al. One of the immemorial titles of the Pope is "Patriarch of the West." The Canon is also cited in this regard by Siscoe/Salza:

    "This Sedevacantist bishop and priest will no doubt be surprised to learn that an ecumenical council of the Church explicitly condemned the practice of excluding their Patriarch’s name (or Pope if the Patriarch of the West) from the Church’s liturgies before a formal judgment by the Church."​

    INTERVIEW: Salza & Siscoe unmask Sedevacantism
     
    Lateran likes this.
  10. St. Robert Bellarmine states:
    “Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice, II.29.)”

    St. Thomas also states:
    "Since it belongs to the same authority to interpret and to make a law, just as a law cannot be made except by public authority, so neither can a judgment be pronounced except by public authority, which extends over those who are subject to the community .... Wherefore even as it would be unjust for one man to force another to observe a law that was not approved by public authority, so too it is unjust if a man compels another to submit to a judgment that is pronounced by other than the public authority.


    John of St. Thomas quotes an important decree of Gratian (I, Dist 40, D 79, C.11)
    “Eiectionem summorum sacerdoutum sibi Dominus reservavit, licet electionem eorum bonis sacerdotibus et spiritualibus populis concessisset” [“The Lord has reserved to Himself the deposition of the Sovereign Pontiffs”].


    AZORIUS,
    quoted by John of St. Thomas says,
    "No heretic Bishop, no matter how visible his heresy may be, and in spite of him incurring excommunication, or loses jurisdiction and Episcopal power, until he is declared such by the Church and deposed.


    Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre warned in 1979:
    "The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one.

    “And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."


    We do not need to seek anything outside of the salvation God had already communicated to us for 6,000 years; and we must realize that God has placed rulers in authority over us and we should respect their positions (Romans 13:1-5):
    “Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God' s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God' s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.”
     
    Lateran likes this.
  11. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member

    Excellent instruction!
     
  12. The false resistance in crisis.

    We learned a short time after when Fr. Pierre Roy left the neo-sspx (June 3, 2016) he had been leaning sedevacantist through private emails forming his own group in eastern Canada while working in collaboration with Bishop Williamson. Per Fr. Patrick Giroud (western Canada), Bishop Williamson told both himself at his time and Fr. Picot when he left, to stay in one local area and independent.

    What is new is that simultaneously Fr. Roy said he is "seriously considering joining the USML" (shown above) and being asked by the false resistance to serve them trad-ecumenical "non una cum" masses.

    Announced on the false resistance website:
    "It's a little last minute, but I was asked to help spread the word that Fr. Pierre Roy is coming to St. Catharines this evening and Saturday morning to offer Holy Mass.

    We have Fr Roy coming this week, he will offer Mass on Friday evening (Jan 20) at 21 Walters Ct. at 6pm, the following day at 9am. Hope you can make it and please let anyone know that you think may be interested. If interested, please bring finger foods."
    http://ablf3.com/threads/fr-roy-st-catharines-mass-announcement.824/

    St. Catharines, 21 Walters Ct., is in eastern Canada. The person "soldierofCtK" announcing it is a big supporter of Bishop Williamson. He is the one who travels and videos the many conferences for the false resistance on the East coast (usa) and is well aware of the issues and errors of Bishop Williamson.

    The association of the false resistance with sedevacantism is not a surprise as it has been documented many times the three bishops (Williamson, Faure, Aquinas) have accepted sedevacantism in their groups to have "non una Cum" masses offered on their altars and given to their people as an option to "do whatever you need to nourish your faith" said Bishop Williamson. It is only that the false resistance made it a blackout on their websites over these years.

    To the usual spin, their websites are trying to alter the news compounding itself in growth and breath within the false resistance. When their errant bishops and priests accepts the practice, then the principle, of sedevacantism, they build on sand their own glass house.

    Bishop Williamson set his agenda in 2012 for trad-ecumenism, including Fenneyism, indults, novus ordo masses, novus ordo miracles, and his two other bishops show they follow that same agenda, contrary from the true resistance of Archbishop Lefebvre. The only reason a few in the false resistance spanning many diversed groups are complaining is that each of those diversed groups try to vie for the top of the soup mix wanting to dominate their own view to have a upper hand while sharing the same bishops.

    Trad-ecumenism NEVER had a bishop before. This is the first time. Now they have three bishops and glory in the mire.

    If some are intolerant to the views of their other brethren, what are they going to do? It only shows the vile nature of compromise and idols. They shouldn't be throwing stones in the glass house they live.

    But, revolution breads revolution.

    They need to come back to the Catholic faith and see that NO house stands outside of the one unique non-ecumenical House of Christ.
     
    ruthy and immaculata like this.
  13. Martius

    Martius Guest

    This is an important event to note.

    In the days of Archbishop Lefebvre, he was clear and certainly not ambiguous. He did not tolerate sedevacantism within the SSPX. He was firm in this. He could clearly see to what end sedevacantism leads. He could see that it was an error bred from the other end of the spectrum of Vatican II's errors - born from a just indignation at seeing the Conciliar Church spewing forth error after error. But Sedevacantsim takes that just indignation to the opposite extreme. It forces its adherents to reject the Popes since Vatican II. There is absolutely no precedence for this stance or view espoused by sedevacantism. There is no historical event or Church documents or Father of the Church that allowed or condoned it.
    Our Lord Himself did not speak of removing Caiphas from his office of High Priest. Caiphas was allowed to continue but by his fruits he was known for the evil man he was. What higher authority do we need?

    With Bishops Williamson, Faure, and Aquinas supporting the mantra: "Do whatever you need to do to nourish your faith" - every evil is allowed. There is no filter to root out and reject the bad fruit from any group. Today, its is sedevacantism, what will be allowed tomorrow?
     
  14. unbrandable

    unbrandable Well-Known Member

    Here is what Bishop Tissier de Mallerais says about sedevacantism. (Bishop Tissier is considered as an excellent theologian).


    Bishop Tissier:

    (taken from the article, Is there a conciliar church?)

    Is it possible to have one hierarchy for two churches?

    That the Catholic hierarchy governs at the same time the Catholic Church and a society which has the appearance of a counterfeit church seems to go against the assistance promised by Christ to Peter and his successors, guaranteeing the unerring magisterium and the indefectibility of the Church (Mt. 16, 17-19; 28,20).

    If the Pope directs another church, he is an apostate and he is no longer pope and the sedevacantist hypothesis is verified. – We simply need to respond that “Prima sedes a nemine judicatur” and that by consequence, no authority can pronounce obstinacy, declaring the pertinacity of a sovereign Pontiff in error or deviance; and that on the other hand in case of doubt, the Church supplies at least the executive power of the apparent Pope (can. 209 of the Code of Canon law 1917 4). As for the magisterium it is only assisted if it has the intention to transmit the deposit of the faith and not profane novelties 5. And as for the indefectibility of the Church it does not hinder the fact that it can come to be that the Church, following a great apostasy as that announced by St. Paul (2 Thess, 2,3), is reduced to a modest number of true Catholics. In consequence, none of the difficulties raised against the existence of a society truly called the conciliar church and directed by the Pope and the Catholic hierarchy are decisive.

    It is however preferable to avoid these extreme responses. One could thus try to deny the existence of the conciliar church as an organised society and which is directed by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, or to extenuate 6 the membership of its adherents to this conciliar church.

    Source: http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2017
  15. Martius

    Martius Guest

    Catechism Pius X - on the Ninth Article of the Apostles Creed:
    The Church in Particular
    12 Q: The many societies of persons who are baptized but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?


    A: No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.
     
  16. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member

    In other words does that mean the sedes Masses are not Catholic?
     
  17. unbrandable

    unbrandable Well-Known Member

    It looks like it.

    Sedevacantist Masses are “mutilated and incomplete.”

    “[Pope] Pelagius I said that to omit it [una cum famulo] would be equivalent to declaring oneself outside the Church, while according to Ennodius of Pavia it would render the sacrifice mutilated and incomplete.” (The Sacramentary: Historical and Liturgical Notes on the Roman Missal, Ildefonso Schuster, Vol. I, p. 273)

    Source: http://obrascatolicas.com/livros/Liturgia/d-v1- The Sacramentary- Schuster.pdf
     
  18. For those who somehow believe Fr. Roy is not sedevacantist in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary, here his an extract of his last email to his parishioners, who where asking him, if he will say his three masses on November 2nd:


    ==================================================

    Chers fidèles,

    c’est une tradition dans nos Missions et dans de nombreuses paroisses du monde de donner au prêtre une liste des âmes pour lesquelles vous voulez qu’il prie pendant le St Sacrifice de la Messe au cours du mois de novembre. Le prêtre fera mémoire de ces âmes au mémento des morts pendant tout le mois.

    Tous ceux qui le désirent peuvent me donner une liste des membres défunts de leur famille et amis avant le 29 octobre, si possible.

    Il est de coutume, mais non pas obligatoire, de faire un petit don à l’Église à cette occasion. Les dons serviront à célébrer les 3 messes du 2 novembre et le reste sera considéré comme des aumônes pour les nombreux besoins de nos Missions.

    Les trois messes du 2 novembre seront célébrées pour les membres défunts de nos Missions et les membres de vos familles et amis défunts.

    En attendant la grande joie de nous consacrer demain au Sacré-Coeur de Jésus et au Coeur Immaculé de Marie demain, je vous souhaite à tous un saint dimanche.

    Abbé Pierre Roy​


    ---------------------------


    Dear Faithful,

    it is a Tradition in our Missions and in many parishes in the world to give to the priest a list of the souls you want him to pray for during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass during the month of November.

    Anyone who wants can give me the list of the deceased member of his family or friends before October 29th, if possible.

    It is customary, but not mandatory, to make a little donation to the Church at this occasion. Donations will serve to celebrate the Masses of November 2nd and the rest will be considered as an alm for the many needs of the Missions.

    The three Masses of November 2nd will be said for the deceased members of our Missions and deceased relatives or friends of the members of the Missions.

    Awaiting the great joy to consecrate ourselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary tomorrow, I wish you a holy Sunday.


    God bless you!

    Abbé Pierre Roy​

    --------------------------------------------------



    Then Fr. Roy made a CORRECTION:



    -------------------------------------------------

    Chers amis,

    une erreur dans mon courriel envoyé un peu plus tôt aujourd’hui. Deux des messes du 2 novembre ont des intentions fixées par l’Église, à savoir : pour toutes les âmes du purgatoire et la deuxième aux intentions du Souverain Pontife (qui sont les grandes intentions habituelles de l’Église).

    Aussi, je ne pourrai pas dire les 3 messes comme prévu le 2 novembre. La première messe sera célébrée le 2, et les deux autres le 3 et le 4.

    Pardonnez cette confusion.

    Abbé Pierre Roy​

    -------------------------

    Dear Friends,

    my mistake : two of the 3 Masses of November 2nd are with intentions that are settled by the Church : all the souls departed and the Intentions of the Pope (which are the intentions of the Church, as usual). So I will not be able to say the three Masses on November 2nd as mentioned in a previous email.

    The three masses for the departed souls of our Missions, families and friends will be said as follows : one on November 2nd, one on November 3rd and one on November 4th.

    Sorry about this confusion.

    Abbé Pierre Roy​

    ==================================================


    Archbishop Lefebvre was clear on the matter for what the intention of the Church means -to "pray for the pope".

    Archbishop Lefebvre, retreat at St. Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

    Concerning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the "non una cum" sedevacantist error, after the Episcopal consecrations of 1988; here is an excerpt from a conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre during a retreat preached to the sisters of Saint-Michel en Brenne, France, on April 1st, 1989

    “… And then, he [Dom Guillo] goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous…you know, this famous una cum.., una cum of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cum? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel en Brenne). You say una cum in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cum summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer. Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed. "We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope." It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!

    Then he [Dom Guillou] had a note about that to clarify a little: "In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Batte, the UNA CUM or "in union with" of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction "and " reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.

    Let us collect the chaff, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be "kept in the holy religion" the "holy orders" and "Apostolic Lord" himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLICUM AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES INSANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS."

    It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? We ask to keep the Pope in the true religion.. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said "There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility". So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly."​
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 17, 2017
  19. .
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 17, 2017