Bishop Faure SAJJ seminary: accepts “non una cum” seminarians to be ordained

D

Deleted member 149

Guest
Sedevacantism has entered the USML and now, the sedevacantists are trying to infiltrate the SAJJ seminary and the Avrille monastery where the seminarians are formed.

Are we about to have “non una cum” seminarians ordained in the French Resistance seminary?

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.’[/URL]
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.

In September 25, 2016, in Houston Texas, Bishop Williamson said that we can attend sedevacantist Masses. Starts at 1:17:38.

Questions:[/U]

How many priests who claim to follow the line of Archbishop Lefebvre are in fact “una cum petro,” ”non una cum Francisco,” “sede vacante” ?

Do the Dominicans of Avrille have “ non una cum” priests among their monks?

1) Ask specifically: Do you pronounce the name of Pope Francis at the Canon of the Mass?

2) You will notice that the majority of the parishioners of these priests are leaning toward sedevacantism.

3) On Good Friday, during the second prayers of “The Solemn Collects” for the Pope which are spoken out loud, they skip his name.

4) During the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, they replace “Oremus pro pontifice nostro Fransisco” Gregorian prayer in the “Tu es Petrus”.

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

UC = una cum ; NUC = non una cum

Bishop Williamson - UC
Bishop Faure - UC
BishopThomas D’ Aquin OSB - UC
Father de Mérode - UC
- NUC
Father Matthieu Salenave - UC
Father Olivier Rioult - NUC
Father Pierre-Marie OP and the 10 other Fathers d’Avrillé - ?
Father Bruno OSB - UC
Father Francois Pivert - UC
Father Remy Picot - UC
Father Francois Chazal - UC[/URL]
Abbé Florian Abrahamowicz - NUC
Father Brühwiller - NUC
Father Eric Jacquim - NUC

Father Fuchs Martin - UC
Father Patrick Girouard - UC
Father David Hewko - UC
Father Pierre-Célestin Ndong Ondo - UC
Father Ernesto Cardozo - UC
Father Arturo Vargas - UC
Father Fernando Altamira - UC
Father Hugo Ruiz Valejo - UC
Father Juan-Carlos Ortiz - UC
Father Frank Sauer - NUC
Father Richard Voigt - UC
Father Arnold Trauner - NUC
Father Trincado - UC
Father Valan Rajkunan - UC
Father Raphaël Arizaga OSB - UC
Father Jahir Brito, FMBV - UC
Father Joaquim Daniel Maria de Sant’ana, FMBV - UC
Father Pfeiffer - UC
Father Pierre Roy - NUC
Father Ballini - UC
Father Garcia - UC
Father Brendan King - UC
Father Bufe - UC
Father Gabert Masi - UC
Father MacDonald - UC
Father Paul Kramer - NUC
Father Raffali - NUC

Father Ringrose - UC
Father Zendejas - UC
Father Arogya Suneel - UC
Father André, OSB -UC
Father Ribas - UC


[11 Dominican priests in Avrille]
Père Marie- Dominique - ?
PèreLouis-Marie - ?
Emmanuel Marie - ?
Pierre-Marie - ?
Innocent-Marie - ?
François-Marie - ?
Hyacinthe-Marie - ?
Laurent-Marie - ?
Angelico - ?
Reginald - ?
Terence - ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


EX QUO (On the Euchologion)

Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on 1 March 1756.

“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 recognizes 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. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: "This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion" (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition). This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: "Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world" (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: "It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world" (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).”

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Admin

Administrator
This is the result of fostering the priest as an individual. The following are two extracts from a recent
sermon by Fr. Hewko:
Pgs.5/6
We have one who will be ready to be a priest in two years. And he will be a good priest I think. He's getting a good formation. Do we have five professors? No because the Bishop who is supposed to help form a seminary and back our seminary and give us the ordinations will not even visit us. He will not even visit us. The very priests who had a mind to come and live with us- he's turned them away. So the message we get from our Bishops is - close down! Close down the seminary - just become independent priests.* And the devil will be very happy. Because he knows how important seminaries are. That's why we cannot close it down. We cannot close it down without knowing that we will be punished from God for it. If the Archbishop was alive right now - his first concern would be seminaries, always! But not Bishop Fellay's seminaries - he would clean house and re-establish the true doctrine; the true stand which is no compromise with VatII. and the new Mass, and no agreement with Rome until Rome comes back to tradition. Period.
Page 6
So where can you get a priestly education today? In the seminaries of the resistance? The one in France is a totally new congregation - it's no longer the SSPX and they work openly [with some who are] sedevacantists, which Archbishop Lefebvre would never do. As far as I understand, Bishop Faure has announced that he doesn't have any future organisation for his priests. Those priests are going to be shipped out to who knows where - on their own. That is not also the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre. Pray for Bishop Faure, maybe he'll change his mind. Maybe he will see that he has to fall in line with our Founder. So where can you go today to receive a priestly education?
* Loose Federation of Priests

..
 
G

Guardian Angel

Guest
Whether this is true or not, Fr. Paul Kramer should not be placed in the category of "non una cum". He prays for Benedict XVI in the Mass.
 

Deus Vult

Well-Known Member
Christ intended His Church to be One; therefore the True Church must be One.
It's members must be united in doctrine, in worship, and in government.
Christ said:

"If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand."
"There shall be one fold and one shepherd."
 
M

Martius

Guest
Whether this is true or not, Fr. Paul Kramer should not be placed in the category of "non una cum". He prays for Benedict XVI in the Mass.

I think you are missing the point. Fr. Kramer does fall under the sedevacantist umbrella - just simply another flavor of sedevacantism. He turns away from the present Pope (allowed by Almighty God) and 'picks' another in his place, similar to those who advocate the Cardinal Siri hypothesis. This is just another sede hypothesis, postulated by Fr. Kramer and embraced by a few, who choose for themselves another Pope. Simply another flavor of sedevacantism. All under the sedevacantism umbrella deny the present Pope - just with different variations. So Machabees was correct to label Fr. Kramer, non una cum.
 
G

Guardian Angel

Guest
I think you are missing the point. Fr. Kramer does fall under the sedevacantist umbrella - just simply another flavor of sedevacantism. He turns away from the present Pope (allowed by Almighty God) and 'picks' another in his place, similar to those who advocate the Cardinal Siri hypothesis. This is just another sede hypothesis, postulated by Fr. Kramer and embraced by a few, who choose for themselves another Pope. Simply another flavor of sedevacantism. All under the sedevacantism umbrella deny the present Pope - just with different variations. So Machabees was correct to label Fr. Kramer, non una cum.
You are wrong. Sedevacantism traditionally means that the Chair of Peter is empty, that is, there is currently no pope. Fr. Paul Kramer believes that the Chair of Peter is occupied by Benedict XVI. You have twisted this traditional meaning.
 
M

Martius

Guest
Sedevacantism traditionally means that the Chair of Peter is empty, that is, there is currently no pope. Fr. Paul Kramer believes that the Chair of Peter is occupied by Benedict XVI. You have twisted this traditional meaning.
Fr. Kramer's version of sedevacantism both implicitly and explicitly denies that Francis is the true Pope. Thus he embraces the error of sedevacantism. He has just chosen a different flavor in preferring to believe that Benedict is the Pope and not Francis.

I will pray for you and Fr. Kramer.
 

Deus Vult

Well-Known Member
Catholics follow the papacy.
If the Pope doesn't follow the papacy,
Catholics don't follow the Pope.

It's that simple. There's no one on the face of the earth that can make a Pope right now.
If he's in error that's his problem and those who choose to follow his errors.

No priest or faithful has the authority to pick and choose the man they prefer to sit on the Throne of Peter.
 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
You are wrong. Sedevacantism traditionally means that the Chair of Peter is empty, that is, there is currently no pope. Fr. Paul Kramer believes that the Chair of Peter is occupied by Benedict XVI. You have twisted this traditional meaning.
Guardian Angel, you are perpetuating wrong information. The historical facts show Fr. Paul Kramer has three declared public positions.

1 - Fr. Paul Kramer accepted and believed Pope Francis (elected March 13, 2013) was the legitimate pope in which he prayed for him 'una cum' in his private and public masses for 8-months 16-days until Nov. 28, 2013.

2 - On Nov. 28, 2013, Fr. Paul Kramer declared on his Facebook page he is a sedevacantist due to his renouncing Pope Francis' published "Apostolic Exhortation" Evangelii Gaudium Fr. Kramer called "heresy". On the same day, when asked by someone on his facebook page to clarify, Fr. Kramer responded to affirm his announcement: "The conclusion is inescapable. Sedevacante." And again in an email exchange, Fr. Paul Kramer affirmed this is true , quote: " [it] is true that for approximately 18 hours in 2013 I was believing the papal see to be vacant." (Fr. Paul Kramer, March 2016)

3 - After those 18 hours of sedevacantism towards pope Francis, the next day Nov. 29 2013, Fr. Paul Kramer then declared on his Facebook page that he is now a "sedealterist" - he believes pope Benedict XVI is "still" the pope.

It cannot be both ways.

The proof of 'Fr. Paul Kramer's Newest Position' is found here http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/fr-kramers-newest-position.3639/

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
Guardian Angel, what is the difference between the modernist "heresies" of popes Francis and pope Benedict promoting the new religion of Vatican II which Fr. Kramer is presently and conveniently ignoring? In Fr. Kramer's own writings and position towards these two popes is quite hypocritical and untenable. Isn't it rather silly he 'condemns' one and not the other?

Remember, Fr Kramer said he renounced pope Francis due to "heresy" before he accepted the "sedealtarist theory" of pope Benedict, so for anyone to accept or support as plausible Fr. Kramer's example to follow the "heresies" of pope Benedict and not of the "heresies" of pope Francis is duplicit; is it not?

Do you support his dialectic?

Adding to pope Benedict's litany of "heresy" Fr. Kramer wants you to turn a blind eye to as insignificant, pope Francis continues another of his legacies towards the Lutherans, here. Remembering it was Benedict XVI’s own idea to begin with to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Revolution.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elenchus

Member
Sedevacantism has entered the USML and now, the sedevacantists are trying to infiltrate the SAJJ seminary and the Avrille monastery where the seminarians are formed.

Are we about to have “non una cum” seminarians ordained in the French Resistance seminary?

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.

In September 25, 2016, in Houston Texas, Bishop Williamson said that we can attend sedevacantist Masses. Starts at 1:17:38.


Questions:

How many priests who claim to follow the line of Archbishop Lefebvre are in fact “una cum petro,” ”non una cum Francisco,” “sede vacante” ?

Do the Dominicans of Avrille have “ non una cum” priests among their monks?


Here is a way to find out:

1) Ask specifically: Do you pronounce the name of Pope Francis at the Canon of the Mass?

2) You will notice that the majority of the parishioners of these priests are leaning toward sedevacantism.

3) On Good Friday, during the second prayers of “The Solemn Collects” for the Pope which are spoken out loud, they skip his name.

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

UC = una cum ; NUC = non una cum

Bishop Williamson - UC
Bishop Faure - UC
BishopThomas D’ Aquin OSB - UC
Father de Mérode - UC
Father Nicolas Pinaud - NUC

Father Matthieu Salenave - UC
Father Olivier Rioult - NUC
Father Pierre-Marie OP and the 10 other Fathers d’Avrillé - ?
Father Bruno OSB - UC
Father Francois Pivert - ?
Father Remy Picot - UC
Father Francois Chazal - UC
Abbé Florian Abrahamowicz - NUC
Father Brühwiller - NUC
Father Eric Jacquim - NUC
Father Fuchs Martin - NUC

Father Patrick Girouard - UC
Father David Hewko - UC
Father Pierre-Célestin Ndong Ondo - UC
Father Ernesto Cardozo - ?
Father Arturo Vargas - UC
Father Fernando Altamira - NUC
Father Hugo Ruiz Valejo - UC
Father Juan-Carlos Ortiz - UC
Father Frank Sauer - NUC
Father Richard Voigt - UC
Father Arnold Trauner - NUC
Father Trincado - UC
Father Valan Rajkunan - UC
Father Raphaël Arizaga OSB - UC
Father Jahir Brito, FMBV - UC
Father Joaquim Daniel Maria de Sant’ana, FMBV - UC
Father Pfeiffer - UC
Father Roy - NUC
Father Ballini - UC
Father Garcia - UC
Father Brendan King - UC
Father Bufe - UC
Father Gabert Masi - UC
Father MacDonald - UC
Father Paul Kramer - NUC
Father Raffali - NUC

Father Ringrose - UC
Father Zendejas - UC
Father Suneel Kumar Reddy - UC


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


EX QUO (On the Euchologion)

Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on 1 March 1756.

“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 recognizes 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. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: "This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion" (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition). This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: "Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world" (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: "It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world" (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).”

.
Please note that Father Fuchs is Una Cum and not as mentioned above NUC which is wrong. Thank you for correcting this mistake.
 
G

Guardian Angel

Guest
Fr. Kramer's version of sedevacantism both implicitly and explicitly denies that Francis is the true Pope. Thus he embraces the error of sedevacantism. He has just chosen a different flavor in preferring to believe that Benedict is the Pope and not Francis.

I will pray for you and Fr. Kramer.
Martius, "sedevacantism" literally means that the Chair (of Peter) is vacant. Fr. Kramer does not believe that the Chair (of Peter) is vacant. He holds Benedict XVI as the one sitting in the Chair (of Peter). Therefore, Fr. Kramer is not a sedevacantist. Please don't change a traditional term and apply a new meaning to it. This is what the Modernists do.
 
G

Guardian Angel

Guest
Guardian Angel, you are perpetuating wrong information. The historical facts show Fr. Paul Kramer has three declared public positions.

1 - Fr. Paul Kramer accepted and believed Pope Francis (elected March 13, 2013) was the legitimate pope in which he prayed for him 'una cum' in his private and public masses for 8-months 16-days until Nov. 28, 2013.

2 - On Nov. 28, 2013, Fr. Paul Kramer declared on his Facebook page he is a sedevacantist due to his renouncing Pope Francis' published "Apostolic Exhortation" Evangelii Gaudium Fr. Kramer called "heresy". On the same day, when asked by someone on his facebook page to clarify, Fr. Kramer responded to affirm his announcement: "The conclusion is inescapable. Sedevacante." And again in an email exchange, Fr. Paul Kramer affirmed this is true , quote: " [it] is true that for approximately 18 hours in 2013 I was believing the papal see to be vacant." (Fr. Paul Kramer, March 2016)

3 - After those 18 hours of sedevacantism towards pope Francis, the next day Nov. 29 2013, Fr. Paul Kramer then declared on his Facebook page that he is now a "sedealterist" - he believes pope Benedict XVI is "still" the pope.

It cannot be both ways.

The proof of 'Fr. Paul Kramer's Newest Position' is found here http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/fr-kramers-newest-position.3639/

.
Machabees, I am speaking about the position that Fr. Kramer holds as I write this post.
 
G

Guardian Angel

Guest
Guardian Angel, what is the difference between the modernist "heresies" of popes Francis and pope Benedict promoting the new religion of Vatican II which Fr. Kramer is presently and conveniently ignoring? In Fr. Kramer's own writings and position towards these two popes is quite hypocritical and untenable. Isn't it rather silly he 'condemns' one and not the other?

Remember, Fr Kramer said he renounced pope Francis due to "heresy" before he accepted the "sedealtarist theory" of pope Benedict, so for anyone to accept or support as plausible Fr. Kramer's example to follow the "heresies" of pope Benedict and not of the "heresies" of pope Francis is duplicit; is it not?

Do you support his dialectic?

Adding to pope Benedict's litany of "heresy" Fr. Kramer wants you to turn a blind eye to as insignificant, pope Francis continues another of his legacies towards the Lutherans, here. Remembering it was Benedict XVI’s own idea to begin with to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Revolution.

Don't change the subject.
 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
Guardian Angel, haven't you read the link provided to you? I do not know which part you do not understand.

Fr. Kramer can hold a position as a zoo keeper tomorrow and a circus performer the next. It doesn't matter how many "positions" he promotes after the fact he denounced pope Francis as the legitimate pope due to heresy. Fr. Kramer chose his "newest position" out of manifest default and utility. Martius is correct, the foundation of Fr. Kramer is a sedevacantist on either path.

You are avoiding questions. Please answer below.

1 - Do you believe pope Francis is the pope or Benedict is the pope?

2 - What is the difference between the SAME modernist "heresies" of pope Francis and pope Benedict promoting the new religion of Vatican II which Fr. Kramer is presently and conveniently ignoring for you to believe him? That is, in Fr. Kramer's own writings and position towards these two popes, he has many times expounded each of their "heresies". Isn't it quite hypocritical and silly he 'condemns' one and not the other?

3 - Remember, Fr Kramer said he renounced pope Francis due to "heresy" before he accepted and immediately after chose in default the "sedealtarist theory" of pope Benedict. So for anyone to accept or support as plausible Fr. Kramer's example to follow the "heresies" of pope Benedict as valid and not of the "heresies" of pope Francis, is duplicit; is it not? Do you support his dialectic?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guardian Angel

Guest
Guardian Angel, haven't you read the link provided to you? I do not know which part you do not understand.

Fr. Kramer can hold a position as a zoo keeper tomorrow and a circus performer the next. It doesn't matter how many "positions" he promotes after the fact he denounced pope Francis as the legitimate pope due to heresy. Fr. Kramer chose his "newest position" out of manifest default and utility. Martius is correct, the foundation of Fr. Kramer is a sedevacantist on either path.

You are avoiding questions. Please answer below.

1 - Do you believe pope Francis is the pope or Benedict is the pope?

2 - What is the difference between the SAME modernist "heresies" of pope Francis and pope Benedict promoting the new religion of Vatican II which Fr. Kramer is presently and conveniently ignoring for you to believe him? That is, in Fr. Kramer's own writings and position towards these two popes, he has many times expounded each of their "heresies". Isn't it quite hypocritical and silly he 'condemns' one and not the other?

3 - Remember, Fr Kramer said he renounced pope Francis due to "heresy" before he accepted and immediately after chose in default the "sedealtarist theory" of pope Benedict. So for anyone to accept or support as plausible Fr. Kramer's example to follow the "heresies" of pope Benedict as valid and not of the "heresies" of pope Francis, is duplicit; is it not? Do you support his dialectic?
Fr. Paul Kramer is not Sedevacantist.
 
Top