OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope Jul 31, 2019 2:13:54 GMT via mobile

Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 2:13:54 GMT

Jul 31, 2019 2:05:03 GMT Admin said:

Jul 31, 2019 2:02:41 GMT @mm said:

"Fr." Poison's conditional ordination by a heretic supersedes his ordination by the FSSP, just as Moran's "consecration" by the group in Colorado superseded everything before.

Unless "fr." Poisson publicly renounces his involvement with a heretic, he is a heretic.

As for b. Timlin, birds of a feather flock together.

As for fr. Hewko, God help him.

There is no declaring people heretics before the Church does here on The Catacombs , MM.

www.tfp.org/the-heretic-excludes-himself-from-the-church-being-condemned-by-his-own-judgment/

canon 1364 of Book VI on Penal Law which says “An apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication”.

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope Jul 31, 2019 2:19:56 GMT

Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2019 2:19:56 GMT

Jul 31, 2019 2:13:54 GMT @mm said:

Jul 31, 2019 2:05:03 GMT Admin said:

There is no declaring people heretics before the Church does here on The Catacombs , MM.

www.tfp.org/the-heretic-excludes-himself-from-the-church-being-condemned-by-his-own-judgment/

canon 1364 of Book VI on Penal Law which says “An apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication”.

Tread very carefully here, MM. I repeat, unless the Church declares someone a heretic, it categorically won’t be allowed here or this term of heresy or heretic will be applied willy-nilly by everyone. This is the last warning.

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980

Fidelis
New Member

Posts: 52

OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope Jul 31, 2019 2:51:45 GMT via mobile

Post by Fidelis on Jul 31, 2019 2:51:45 GMT

Jul 30, 2019 23:39:57 GMT Admin said:

But let me be clear, doubtfulness does NOT EQUAL invalidity. It means simply what it says, there is a doubt [in this instance, a doubt as to validity of the Novus Ordo/New Rite Sacraments].

Yes, we tread a perilous path if we venture on to the realm of invalidity, an area beyond one's expertise as well as assuming the authority reserved for the Church to judge on the matter.

Last Edit: Jul 31, 2019 3:03:26 GMT by Fidelis

amicus
New Member

Posts: 20

OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope Jul 31, 2019 3:05:20 GMT

Post by amicus on Jul 31, 2019 3:05:20 GMT

However, in his departure letter from OLMC as well as other sermons he claims the dubiousness of New Rite ordinations and Episcopal consecrations. This poses a difficulty and hence we sought clarification, because the position he holds must mean he offers mass in union with a doubtful Pope. (Cardinal Ratzinger consecrated as a New Rite Bishop and Pope Francis as you know is ordained in the New Rite as a Priest and Bishop).

Sean and Susan, Fr. Hewko is saying the same Mass he said while at OLMC, the same as Fr. Pfeiffer, please tell us if Fr. Pfeiffer is no longer Praying for the Pope

in his Masses. I know Fr. Pfeiffer never held the sedevacantist position, has that changed?

Fidelis
New Member

Posts: 52

OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope Jul 31, 2019 3:36:35 GMT via mobile

Post by Fidelis on Jul 31, 2019 3:36:35 GMT

Jul 30, 2019 2:56:42 GMT nomad said:

I tend to agree with Father Pfieffer's assessment of conditional ordination for pastoral reasons as well as resolving doubts of the Priest during this scourge of 'diabolical disorientation.'
An investigation is required on a case by case basis but the Priest who has no doubts about the validity of his ordination has the right to refuse re-ordination. Refer to cases of Fr Hesse and Fr Perez. Yet, I hope for a response from Fr Hewko.

I pray Fr Pfeiffer completely rejects Ambrose Moran. He still considers him a Bishop and is complicit by his silence on these fake 'excommunications' imposed on Fr Hewko, Tony La Rosa and Greg Taylor.

St Ignatius of Loyola, Pray for us!

Last Edit: Jul 31, 2019 6:17:24 GMT by Fidelis

tradcatfam
New Member

Posts: 9

OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope Jul 31, 2019 5:56:25 GMT

Post by tradcatfam on Jul 31, 2019 5:56:25 GMT

Jul 30, 2019 22:43:51 GMT Admin said:

Jul 30, 2019 20:36:43 GMT tradcatfam said:

Firstly, I see where I may have been confusing. I have several times posted on this site in the past that Fr. Poisson was ordained in the Old Rite but by a New Rite bishop. Fr. Hewko speaks of this clearly as well in his Statement of February 13, 2019. I see I took it for granted that these facts were well known. When I have spoken of Fr. Poisson's Novus Ordo ordination, I lumped his Novus Ordo seminary formation and ordination by a Novus Ordo bishop broadly into the Novus Ordo 'structure'.
yes, your first point here is very confusing because you did not say anything about being ordained in the old rite you said in the novus ordo. For new comers or anyone really that is incredibly confusing because old rite is not novus ordo no matter who ordains you or what your formation was.

Secondly, we see once again the 'myth' that it is Father Hewko who is creating/casting doubt onto Fr. Poisson's ordination being spread in the above post. No one who supports OLMC has yet acknowledged that the FACT is that that it was Fr. Pfeiffer who first announced the doubt abut Fr. Poisson's ordination in March of 2018 and kept him off circuit for several months. If Fr. Poisson's ordination was free of doubt, it was a great sacrilege to bring Moran in for a reordination [one cannot say enough how dubious that 'reordination was at Moran's hands]. The FACTS point clearly to the superior of OLMC making the executive decision that Fr. Poisson's first ordination was in doubt.
Your second point is not exactly fair. I am not propagating a myth, I never said Father Hewko started anything, only that he is casting doubt which he is, he says it himself. I don't think the letter is suggesting Father Hewko started anything at all either, only that he continues to talk about it and it is confusing.

Also, I don't speak for OLMC but I don't see how they are not acknowledging that it was Fr. Pfeiffer who first wanted him conditionally re-ordained. He's the superior there and clearly its acknowledged that he was the one that made the decision to do it, a decision that he has been criticized for to this day even though he has come out and said Bishop Ambrose Moran will have nothing to do with OLMC. He says this again in his recent conference.

All this has been said many times here but I have no problem repeating these FACTS over and over if it is needed. However, I am at the point that I will '~~strike through~~' any further posts that propagate the myth that Fr. Hewko created doubt about Fr. Poisson's ordination, beginning with his Statement of February 13th. The FACTS are otherwise and I will not allow this confusion to be spread here.
I never said Father Hewko created doubt about Fr. Poisson's ordination. I said he was casting doubt, which he himself says in his February letter and recent conference. What I said was "the problem that is then created is this- if we are supposed to doubt a priest ordained in the old rite just because he was consecrated by a new rite bishop what are we then supposed to do with a pope that is both new rite priest and bishop since sedevecantism is an error?"
I find it sad that you would want to strike anything through because I'm not trying to propagate any myth, it is simply a question. If there is confusion it is because this is actually confusing. You are writing here as though I'm trying to degrade Father Hewko or put something on him that he didn't say, I'm not doing either.

Thirdly, lets discuss this casting of doubt on new Rite Orders that is now all of a sudden 'creating a problem' linked to sedevacantism. Both the letter of Susan and Sean's and now tradcatfam are repeating that this 'creation of a problem' is somehow Fr. Hewko's doing. Really? Did Fr. Pfeiffer have this same conflict and crisis on his hands when he too declared Fr. Poisson's first ordination doubtful? Did Fr. Pfeiffer 'create a problem' with concern that the pope was not valid when he declared Fr. Poisson needed to be reordained?

Neither Father Hewko nor Father Pfeiffer created this particular problem and yes this has been a crisis within the SSPX-- Sedevecantism has been a problem for the SSPX pretty much since its inception. What the letter is addressing is this, should an old rite priest be doubtful just because a novus ordo bishop performed the old rite ordination. I for one am confused by this because it seems there is no doubt about the completely novus ordo Pope being Pope but there is doubt on an old rite priest because he was ordained by a novus ordo bishop. Maybe this is coming up because it is concerning an old rite priest being doubtful, not a novus ordo priest being doubtful.

To lump this onto Fr. Hewko is really .... something. The Recusant made a great point yesterday: this whole thing is less about Fr. Poisson than it is about attacking Fr. Hewko. There is zero that Fr. Hewko is being accused of that cannot be redirected right back to OLMC. And the polemics are nothing but that, absurd polemics.
This is just odd to me. I can't speak for the letter writers but just because they are having a legitimate concern about what a priest publicly said does not mean they are attacking him. I don't see how it can be considered absurd polemics. Maybe the delivery was all wrong but they do have a legitimate concern. I however can speak for myself. There is nothing on here that I have written that is an attack against Father Hewko, on the contrary I suggest people call him with questions. Same as with Father Pfeiffer, call these priests with questions. Both priests truly want to save souls!-- I will however apologize, Beth Cline did note I should not have made the theologian/pitchfork comment. She is right, I wasn't intending to mock and I don't want to take away from what I am actually saying- I'll find that and remove it.

Let me be very clear. The Catacombs does not condone nor support sedevacantism. This has been the case since day one of the forum [see the Welcome at the top of the page]. There is also a whole section of resources here showing its falseness. We all know too that for all his priesthood, Fr. Hewko has consistently condemned sedevacantism. This is something he has repeated ad nauseam for years!

You are 100% correct Father Hewko vehemently denounces sedevecantism ad nauseam and such as he should and it's good that your website does the same. However not all of us know this about him because there are many of us here that are new but this is not the point. No one said Father Hewko is a sedevecantist, I know I didn't and no where in that letter did they say he was a sedevecantist. It only asked the question of what to do if we are to doubt an old rite just because it was performed by a novus ordo bishop. I'm assuming thats why they titled the letter the way they did.

To somehow twist the FACTS into something they are not is disingenuous. We all know that when Fr. Pfeiffer declared that Fr. Poisson needed to be reordained, he was following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre. We know that when Fr. Hewko has said that Fr. Poisson needs to be reordained, he is also following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre. One of these priests changed. And it wasn't Fr. Hewko.

I do not see how any facts were twisted or how the letter was disingenuous-- After hearing father's conference I had the same questions, lo and behold I somehow receive this letter in my e-mail. I have no idea how I got it much like I have no idea how I get emails from the Australian Luke Ross coordinator.
What I find to be sad is that just because someone asks Fr. Hewko to clarify something somehow means they are attacking him. Or that this is somehow an attack from OLMC or Fr. Pfeiffer. The question remains no matter how it got out is what are we to do with a Pope that is new rite in both ordination and consecration. We obviously aren't going to go to any of his masses that much is for sure.

Thanks for letting me post up here. Hopefully you won't strike it through.

The following is the video from Father Hewko, he starts talking about the doubt at minute 44:40

And here is the link for Father Pfeiffer's video that addresses the conditional re-ordination and validity and pretty much everything else that was talked about here

bethcline
New Member

Posts: 29

OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope Jul 31, 2019 7:07:38 GMT

Post by bethcline on Jul 31, 2019 7:07:38 GMT

Are we really being asked to view yet another one of Fr Pfeiffer's conferences so soon after the scandalous aggressive promotion of Moran by him through his hours of conferences on this subject....obviously biased...excluding much necessary information and whitewashing facts in order to manipulate the trusting faithful to agree with his imprudent decision of using this man as a bishop? Twice now Fr Pfeiffer has introduced him into the Resistance, actually used him as a bishop, and then totally publicly bashed all those who disagreed with him in this regard through his bitter sermon titled "Vain Babblers" !
Cowardly silence from him when Moran publicly denounced Archbishop Lefebvre and excommunicated his closest advocates? Are these qualities of someone who can now successfully guide us through such difficult issues? Are you suggesting we simply trust him now, after he has proven himself to be untrustworthy, after he has whispered, sometimes in the ears of our very own children, against us, simply because we refused this insane path he was leading us all down? Unbelievable!
If an investigation is required, this is the very last person who should be doing it. He proved himself incapable of these sorts of decisions during the Moran investigations. How many years were we waiting on a document that was never obtained?
Tell me please...do you think we are simply naive and gullible or just plain stupid?
No thank you. I have had enough of his manipulation. I will not willingly put myself, or my children, in that sort of dangerous situation ever again.

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope Jul 31, 2019 9:39:44 GMT

Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2019 9:39:44 GMT

Immaculate Mary: Who these future Traditional Priests and Bishops will be, we do not know.

No one does.

Immaculate Mary: What we do know is that for since 2005 (for 14 years), Catholics have had two Popes consecrated in the New Rite. And for those Priests (like Fr. Hewko) who hold the position of the objective dubiousness of the New Rite ordinations and Episcopal consecrations, they must have offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in union with doubtful Popes for the past 14 years.

I must confess my continued amazement that this offense of 'objective dubiousness' is continuously being held against Fr. Hewko when this was the stance of the entire SSPX for many many years [Fr. Hewko being an SSPX priest], as well as many other traditional priests. And even if this stance of the SSPX and other traditional priests was unknown to the authors of this letter, then why were these questions were never, ever proffered during the first several months of Fr. Poisson's stay at OLMC when he was deliberately kept [and he agreed] off the Mass circuits for that very same "objective dubiousness of the New Rite ordinations and Episcopal Consecrations?" Where was the indignation then, the demanding of answers then? Where were the public letters and the 'outcry'? I truly hope for an answer to these questions.

Archbishop Lefebvre [and the old SSPX] on the "objective dubiousness" of the New Rite ... anything:

1974

It can happen that the Sacraments are not valid. In any case it can occur that the Sacraments are doubtfully valid, that is, that they are doubtful.

All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments…This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

1976

In these critical moments, we must remain with that which is surest. We must avoid doubtful things. We must make our stand on things that are certain, absolutely certain, without a thousandth per cent of doubt: our Creed, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin. We cannot go wrong there.

And that adulterous union can produce only bastards. And who are those bastards? They are our rites: the rite of Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments-we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ or if it does not give them.

...we cannot change our Sacraments, changing them into human works, purely human, which no longer carry the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

1980

But one cannot change what Jesus Christ has established. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, the Creed, our catechism, the Sacred Scriptures - all come from Jesus Christ. To change them is to change the establishment of Jesus Christ. Impossible! One cannot say that the Church has been mistaken; if something is wrong one must look for the reason somewhere, but not in the Church. They also say that the Church must change as modem man changes, that as man has a new way of life, so too the Church must have another doctrine - a new Mass, new Sacraments, a new catechism, new seminaries - and, in this way, everything has gone to ruin. Everything has been ruined! ... The Church is hardly recognizable today. The ceremonies - the half - Protestant, half-Catholic liturgy - are a circus...

We must refuse to compromise with those who deny the divinity of Our Lord, or with any false ecumenism. We must fight against atheism and laicism in order to help Our Lord to reign over families and over society. We must protect the worship of the Church, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacraments instituted by Our Lord, practicing them according to the rites honored by twenty centuries of tradition.

The Church cannot content herself with doubtful sacraments nor with ambiguous teaching. Those who have introduced these doubts and this ambiguity are not disciples of the Church. Whatever their intentions may have been, they in fact worked against the Church. ... It is consoling to note that in the Catholic world, the sense of faith of the faithful rejects these novelties and attaches itself to Tradition. It is from this that the true renewal of the Church will come.

1982

[...] one can almost say now that error spreads in the Church through obedience, which is something unheard of in the Church; that we are obliged by obedience to accept doctrine which is no longer truly orthodox, and sacraments which are doubtful.

1985

And so they reformed the Mass, [they made] the New Mass, the new sacraments, the new catechisms, the new Bible. All is changed by the spirit of ecumenism, to be closer to the Protestants.

1988

Consecration Sermon: When God calls me - no doubt this will be before long - from whom would these seminarians receive the Sacrament of Orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments? This is not possible.

1990

... because priests and faithful have a strict right to have shepherds who profess the Catholic Faith in its entirety, essential for the salvation of their souls, and to have priests who are true Catholic priests. [...] the Conciliar Church, having now reached everywhere, is spreading errors contrary to the Catholic Faith and, as a result of these errors, it has corrupted the sources of grace, which are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. This false Church is in an ever-deeper state of rupture with the Catholic Church. Source

I have only included here a few of the many, many times Archbishop Lefebvre spoke on the doubtfulness of the New Rite Sacraments. Again, this is not a Fr. Hewko invention. This was the old SSPX.

But maybe this is indeed the deeper issue. The deeper issue isn't Fr. Poisson's case per se but whether or not OLMC will hold the line of Archbishop Lefebvre's and go back to its previous stance that the New Rite of ordination and consecration are doubtful? Doubtful for all the reasons clearly delineated by Archbishop Lefebvre?

On a personal note, the reason I left the SSPX and joined OLMC six years ago was because OLMC was following Archbishop Lefebvre. Remember when the SSPX changed stances publicly and wrote (among other things) in their 2012 Doctrinal Declaration that the New Mass and New Sacraments were legitimately promulgated? It was because OLMC didn't follow along and instead clung to the teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre (who only echoed and repeated what the Church has always taught) that I went with them.

It was very sad to watch OLMC too change last year, between Moran and also this abandoning of the Archbishop on the New Rite sacraments. And once again we find ourselves remaining with those priests who adhere to the old SSPX, to the Archbishop's guiding principles, to the firm ground of the Church's teaching on doubtful Sacraments.

Last Edit: Jul 31, 2019 10:33:03 GMT by Admin

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980

S.A.G.
Full Member

Posts: 177

OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope Jul 31, 2019 13:46:46 GMT

Post by S.A.G. on Jul 31, 2019 13:46:46 GMT

This question is important and deserves an answer . We’re waiting:

Will the authors of this letter PLEASE tell us why Fr. Pfeiffer had Fr. Poisson conditionally ordained if there is no positive doubt about Fr. Poisson's ordination by a Novus Ordo bishop? They skipped over the fact of the conditional ordination as if it never happened.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope Jul 31, 2019 14:16:52 GMT

Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 14:16:52 GMT

Actually we are in union with the Pope during Mass.

The Te Igitur prayer in the Canon of the Mass

Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Iesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas, et benedicas, haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata, in primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare, et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N., et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae, et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.

Therefore, most gracious Father, we humbly beg of Thee and entreat Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord to deem acceptable and bless, these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unspotted oblations. which we offer unto Thee in the first instance for Thy holy and Catholic Church, that Thou wouldst deign to give her peace and protection, to unite and guide her the whole world over; in union with Thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our bishop, and all true believers, who cherish the catholic and apostolic faith.

Archbishop Lefebvre, 1989-
“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.”

Fidelis
New Member

Posts: 52

OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope Jul 31, 2019 15:44:17 GMT via mobile

Post by Fidelis on Jul 31, 2019 15:44:17 GMT

Fr Hesse (May he rest in peace) on the validity of the novus ordo sacraments. He begins with an explanation on the validity of his new rite ordination but explains that the new rites are illicit and schismatic, meaning cut off from the Latin rite of Sacraments as issued by Pope Pius XII's encyclical Sacramentum Ordinis in 1947. The new rites of ordination for Priesthood and Episcopacy were an entirely new creation yet somehow valid because they still express some Catholicity. He even mentions the sspx Bishops including +Tissier assuring him of not needing re-conditional ordination and this was back in the 2000s when the society were solid.

Fr Hesse believed the new mass was almost always invalid due to defect in form (before Pope Benedict XVI restored it to original words of consecration) as well as the novus confirmation rites with the defect of matter permitting vegetable oil instead of olive oil and defect of form.

Last Edit: Jul 31, 2019 16:45:34 GMT by Fidelis

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope Jul 31, 2019 16:57:09 GMT

Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2019 16:57:09 GMT

Jul 31, 2019 14:16:52 GMT @janice said:

Actually we are in union with the Pope during Mass.

The Te Igitur prayer in the Canon of the Mass

Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Iesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas, et benedicas, haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata, in primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare, et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N., et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae, et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.

Therefore, most gracious Father, we humbly beg of Thee and entreat Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord to deem acceptable and bless, these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unspotted oblations. which we offer unto Thee in the first instance for Thy holy and Catholic Church, that Thou wouldst deign to give her peace and protection, to unite and guide her the whole world over; in union with Thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our bishop, and all true believers, who cherish the catholic and apostolic faith.

Archbishop Lefebvre, 1989-
“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.”

Here is the a more complete quote of the Archbishop on the 'una cum' from this talk given to the Sisters at Michel en Brenne in 1989, which gives his words more context:

Archbishop Lefebvre was clear on the matter. "Una Cum" held in the Sacrifice of the Mass is for the intention of the Church praying. It is not for personal devotion; nor for debate; nor for any abuse to add or hold anything different than the intention to save souls in the self same manner as Christ's intention on the Cross in oblation to His Father.

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, people no longer understand anything, they are completely desperate, they do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it. »

Archbishop Lefebvre, retreat at Saint-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989 - Source

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope Jul 31, 2019 17:07:11 GMT

Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2019 17:07:11 GMT

Jul 31, 2019 14:25:50 GMT @janice said:

The central answer to the new rite question many are struggling with is found in two parts: first, what is the Intention of the Church (not a person) manifest in the Form (words of ordination and consecration).1,2 Second, in traditional catholics own actions. Without Catholics understanding why or how the Intention of the Church exists in Her Form, many innately believe somehow through the Church’s indefectibility the (new rite) pope Francis is really the pope; or you don’t. So a Catholic cannot honestly pray the Te Igitur prayer addressed to God in the mass to be (una cum) in union with the pope (francis) and your diocesan bishop if you don’t think they are both legitimate and valid. It is not possible. It is a mockery to the prayer and to God. Or a double standard.

Soul searching this honesty and the consequence of this core understanding is paramount.

Where did this quote come from?

St. Thomas Aquinas tells us the following about the una cum/the prayers of the Canon [From the Dominicans' Little Catechism on Sedevacantism]:

The “Una Cum” Question
Aren’t the sedevacantists right to refuse to name the pope at Mass in order to show that they are not in communion with (“una cum”) a heretic (at least materially) and his heresies?

The expression “una cum” in the Canon of the Mass does not mean that one affirms that he is “in communion” with the person of the pope and his erroneous ideas, but rather that one wants to pray for the Church “and for” the pope.

In order to be sure of this interpretation, in addition to reading the erudite studies that have been made on this point, it is enough to read the rubric of the missal for the case of a bishop celebrating Mass. In this case, the bishop must pray for the Church “una cum […] me indigno servo tuo,” which does not mean that he prays “in communion with myself, your unworthy servant” (which does not make sense!), but that he prays “and for myself, your unworthy servant.”

What does St. Thomas Aquinas think of this?

St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, when he comments on the prayers of the Mass (III, Q. 83, A. 4, corpus) equates “una cum” with the expression “et pro”: then the priest commemorates in silence [it is the beginning of the Canon] first those for whom the sacrifice is offered, that is [it is offered] for the Universal Church, and for “those who constitute it in dignity” [the pope, the bishop, the king]; then particular some who offer or for whom this sacrifice is offered [the memento of the living].

But doesn’t St. Thomas Aquinas say that in the Canon one should not pray for heretics?

St. Thomas Aquinas does not prohibit praying for heretics, but merely observes that, in the prayers of the Canon of the Mass, one prays for those whose faith and devotion are known to and tested by the Lord (quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio) (III, Q. 79, A. 7, ad 2). For, he says, in order for this sacrifice to obtain its effect (effectum habet), those for whom one prays must be “united to the passion of Christ by faith and charity.” But he does not forbid praying for a non-Catholic. He only means that this prayer will not have the same efficacy as one for a Catholic, and is not provided for in the Canon.

All that can be concluded from this affirmation of St. Thomas is that, if the pope is a heretic (which remains to be proven), then the prayer for him will not have the foreseen effect, “non habet effectum”.

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980

S.A.G.
Full Member

Posts: 177

OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope Jul 31, 2019 20:33:44 GMT

Post by S.A.G. on Jul 31, 2019 20:33:44 GMT

This question is important and deserves an answer. We’re waiting:

Will the authors of this letter PLEASE tell us why Fr. Pfeiffer had Fr. Poisson conditionally ordained if is no positive doubt about Fr. Poisson's ordination by a Novus Ordo bishop? They skipped over the fact of the conditional ordination as if it never happened.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

OLMC et al.: Fr. Hewko, Fr. Poisson, Bp. Timlin and the Pope Aug 1, 2019 0:37:39 GMT

Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 0:37:39 GMT

Jul 30, 2019 2:56:42 GMT nomad said:

At 1:30:40, Fr. Pfeiffer states that Ambrose Moran was consecrated in an Orthodox cathedral in 1976. But we were told by Fr. Pfeiffer that that cathedral was Catholic at the time???