|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 1, 2019 17:48:31 GMT
Here is the video of the Conference of Fr. Pfeiffer where the transcript comes from. It begins at the 45:05 mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3rosaries on Aug 1, 2019 17:59:17 GMT
I didn't realize how many people in this forum wouldn't have dared to attend a Mass said by Fr. Hesse considering his ordination within the novus ordo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 20:49:32 GMT
Actually we are in union with the Pope during Mass. 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.” Janice,
Where did you get this translation of the Canon? It cannot be found in the 1945 nor the 1962 Missals.
There are many missals with various translations. Depends who publishes the missals. You will find in many missals interpreting the una cum as: together, one with, in union with... Go type in the word 'together', you will find the same various synonyms.
Together means in union with. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 21:48:13 GMT
Admin,
Can you please help answer this previous question. It is a crucial beginning to understand with Catholic discourse the new rite question and in our own lives regarding the present pope and his role leading the Church.
Question, If you as a traditional Catholic believe pope Francis (and Benedict XVI prior) to be the true pope, and you pray for him in your masses, benedictions, and private prayers, as well as for your local bishop, how is it that you say the new rite of consecration is doubtful in this discussion yet acknowledge the new rite pope Francis to be the true pope and the new rite local bishop to be your bishop?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 1, 2019 23:12:03 GMT
Janice,
Where did you get this translation of the Canon? It cannot be found in the 1945 nor the 1962 Missals.
There are many missals with various translations. Depends who publishes the missals. You will find in many missals interpreting the una cum as: together, one with, in union with... Go type in the word 'together', you will find the same various synonyms.
Together means in union with. The question is still unanswered. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 1, 2019 23:15:33 GMT
Admin,
Can you please help answer this previous question. It is a crucial beginning to understand with Catholic discourse the new rite question and in our own lives regarding the present pope and his role leading the Church.
Question, If you as a traditional Catholic believe pope Francis (and Benedict XVI prior) to be the true pope, and you pray for him in your masses, benedictions, and private prayers, as well as for your local bishop, how is it that you say the new rite of consecration is doubtful in this discussion yet acknowledge the new rite pope Francis to be the true pope and the new rite local bishop to be your bishop?
Dear Janice's husband,
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and most recently, Fr. Hewko (as posted earlier today), has well explained the answer to your question. I cannot improve on their answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 2, 2019 0:08:36 GMT
"...Our Lord God does not ask us to solve what He has not given eminent Theologians or His chosen friends to solve - He asks us to save our souls, which we do, with His grace, by living as well as we can as Catholics, true sons of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." - Taken from "A Rome and Econe Handbook", 1978 edition
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2019 1:01:08 GMT
There are many missals with various translations. Depends who publishes the missals. You will find in many missals interpreting the una cum as: together, one with, in union with... Go type in the word 'together', you will find the same various synonyms.
Together means in union with. The question is still unanswered. There is another 1958 one isn't there? I seen it in a missal many years ago. To ask which specific date publishers use? How would I, you or anyone know what dates each of the many publishers use for their translation? Is it not the substance of the question that is desirable? I answered it very well. Many missals use the word together; others use different words to explain the same thing. Together means in union with.
Further, I also supplied from the Catechism in more fullness the unity of the pope in the mass question based on the Communion of the Saints and by the body of the Church in her members united with the visible head, the pope, and you deleted it. Why did you do this? Yet rhetorically imply I have not answered this unity question or the other consecration of the new rite question in any fullness saying in PM's it doesn't apply or derails the thread. To the contrary. We all are adults who can value in others views, such as you present your own. Deleting posts does no one any further study or discourse.
If this is a forum for catholic discourse, then we all can benefit the time and research given by others to contribute. Would it not? To delete posts and ask where this is going in a PM without contribution lessens the discourse. I would think discussion on the beauty of the mass would be encouraging for everyone's understanding inviting further research and inspiration.
With that, I offer what I previously wrote coming from SSPX catechisms.
In order to understand the unity of the pope and the local bishops in Catholic masses, it comes from the catechism within the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints and the one Body of Christ in Her members who are one with, and in union with, it's visible Head, the Pope. All Catholic masses are public acts of the Church professing the Catholic Faith whole and entire; which the pope is the visible head. It is the whole Church that offers that public act of sacrifice to God. So not only is the pope and local bishop prayed for as a person in a special way in the mass, as each and every other member of the Church is prayed for, the pope is the unitive agent in the body of the Church offering too, in union with us, together with, that sacrifice to God. Archbishop Lefebvre referred to this when he theologically said: “Every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised."
Please talk to a traditional priest about this. It is very edifying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2019 1:08:18 GMT
Admin,
Can you please help answer this previous question. It is a crucial beginning to understand with Catholic discourse the new rite question and in our own lives regarding the present pope and his role leading the Church.
Question, If you as a traditional Catholic believe pope Francis (and Benedict XVI prior) to be the true pope, and you pray for him in your masses, benedictions, and private prayers, as well as for your local bishop, how is it that you say the new rite of consecration is doubtful in this discussion yet acknowledge the new rite pope Francis to be the true pope and the new rite local bishop to be your bishop?
Dear Janice's husband,
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and most recently, Fr. Hewko (as posted earlier today), has well explained the answer to your question. I cannot improve on their answers.
I'm sorry admin, the Archbishop is not alive in our time to deal with this specific question and thus has not answered this question. This situation of a new rite pope consecrated a bishop after the council and then elected a pope came after his death regarding pope Benedict and pope Francis. We are on our own. Thus, you and Fr. Hewko have not directly answered this question either. It would be edifying if you and father could.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2019 1:19:00 GMT
Dear Janice's husband,
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and most recently, Fr. Hewko (as posted earlier today), has well explained the answer to your question. I cannot improve on their answers.
I'm sorry admin, the Archbishop is not alive in our time to deal with this specific question and thus has not answered this question. This situation of a new rite pope consecrated a bishop after the council manifested the election after his death regarding pope Benedict and pope Francis. We are on our own. Of the which, you or Fr. Hewko have not directly answered this question either. It would be edifying if you and father could.
Sir or Madam,
Since you find no answers to your difficulties with the answers given by Archbishop Lefebvre and echoed by Fr. Hewko, I am afraid there is nothing I can offer you. The Catacombs supports the approach to 'our time' as outlined by the Archbishop. I can do no better for you . Perhaps you should look for the answers to your questions elsewhere?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2019 1:24:36 GMT
The question is still unanswered. There is another 1958 one isn't there? I seen it in a missal many years ago. To ask which specific date publishers use? How would I, you or anyone know what dates each of the many publishers use for their translation? Is it not the substance of the question that is desirable? I answered it very well. Many missals use the word together; others use different words to explain the same thing. Together means in union with.
Further, I also supplied from the Catechism in more fullness the unity of the pope in the mass question based on the Communion of the Saints and by the body of the Church in her members united with the visible head, the pope, and you deleted it. Why did you do this? Yet rhetorically imply I have not answered this unity question or the other consecration of the new rite question in any fullness saying in PM's it doesn't apply or derails the thread. To the contrary. We all are adults who can value in others views, such as you present your own. Deleting posts does no one any further study or discourse.
If this is a forum for catholic discourse, then we all can benefit the time and research given by others to contribute. Would it not? To delete posts and ask where this is going in a PM without contribution lessens the discourse. I would think discussion on the beauty of the mass would be encouraging for everyone's understanding inviting further research and inspiration. With that, I offer what I previously wrote coming from SSPX catechisms. In order to understand the unity of the pope and the local bishops in Catholic masses, it comes from the catechism within the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints and the one Body of Christ in Her members who are one with, and in union with, it's visible Head, the Pope. All Catholic masses are public acts of the Church professing the Catholic Faith whole and entire; which the pope is the visible head. It is the whole Church that offers that public act of sacrifice to God. So not only is the pope and local bishop prayed for as a person in a special way in the mass, as each and every other member of the Church is prayed for, the pope is the unitive agent in the body of the Church offering too, in union with us, together with, that sacrifice to God. Archbishop Lefebvre referred to this when he theologically said: “Every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised."
Please talk to a traditional priest about this. It is very edifying. Sir or Madam, I think if you are so very eager to discuss these questions, you could perhaps post them one of the resource sections of the forum and have an exchange with anyone interested in that more appropriate location. I have already written you privately that there many complaints that your posts are derailing this thread. This thread is about Fr. Hewko and the questions sent him. Which he answered once again today.
You, sir or madam, consistently don't answer the questions put to you and consistently don't source your material. This is dangerous in 'our times' and does not promote honest journalism.
Tread carefully.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fidelis on Aug 2, 2019 2:04:54 GMT
Admin,
Can you please help answer this previous question. It is a crucial beginning to understand with Catholic discourse the new rite question and in our own lives regarding the present pope and his role leading the Church.
Question, If you as a traditional Catholic believe pope Francis (and Benedict XVI prior) to be the true pope, and you pray for him in your masses, benedictions, and private prayers, as well as for your local bishop, how is it that you say the new rite of consecration is doubtful in this discussion yet acknowledge the new rite pope Francis to be the true pope and the new rite local bishop to be your bishop?
Pope Francis and his predecessor Benedict are to be taken at face value Bishops of Rome unless there is POSITIVE DOUBT after proper investigation according to their particular case as advised by Archbishop Lefebvre in such cases that require conditional ordination. Let Holy Mother Church judge on these matters in the future. For now let us continue to pray for Pope Francis, that the Lord will send an Angel as he did to St Peter, to break the chains of his modernist errors and lead him to the True liberty of the Catholic Faith. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2019 2:56:29 GMT
I am sorry, immaculatemary, you still did not answer SAG, why did Fr. Pfeiffer have Fr. Poisson conditionally ordained if he thought his Old Rite ordination was sufficient? Somewhere he believed it was doubtful. I find it very hard to believe a N.O Bishop who says the New Mass and ordains in the New Rite will ordain in the Old Rite, which is it the New or the Old you can't have it both ways. Dear amicus, Fr. Pfeiffer has explained the reason for conditional ordination several times, and you can watch his latest conference, posted by another faithful here on thecatacombs. He also gave a conference on the Sacraments in Boston, KY, earlier this year, where he explains how the Sacraments work. These videos would be of help. Coming back to your question " I find it very hard to believe a N.O Bishop who says the New Mass and ordains in the New Rite will ordain in the Old Rite, which is it the New or the Old you can't have it both ways". From the Novus Ordo perspective, both the New Rite (ordinary form) and Old Rite (extraordinary form) are Rites of the Roman Catholic Church. From SSPX perspective, the New Rite of the Mass is viewed as a bastard (illegitimate) Rite. Illegitimate does not mean invalid. Thus, there is no impediment to prevent a New Rite Bishop to ordain in the Old Rite or the New Rite. In fact, in the Novus Ordo there are Priests like Fr. Mitch Pacwa who have the faculties to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in two different Rites, i.e. Roman and Maronite Rite. Even before Vatican II, we know that Abp. Fulton Sheen offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in two different Rites, i.e. Roman and Byzantine Rite. Pax Christi. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2019 3:13:04 GMT
Dear Fidelis, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko rejected Bp. Moran well over 6 months ago - both Fathers have given their statements on this matter. As regards the Episcopal office of Ambrose Moran, as far as we recollect, in 2018, both Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pfeiffer acknowledged that Bp. Moran as a Bishop. Both Fr. Hewko and Fr. Pfeiffer also recognized that while Ambrose Moran was a Bishop, like any of us, Ambrose Moran had personal faults. We are not sure if Fr. Hewko has now changed his opinion on the Episcopacy of Bp. Moran, and if he has, it would be helpful if someone can let us all know when this happened. In his recent conference talk, Fr. Pfeiffer provides explanations to questions that were raised regarding Bp. Ambrose Moran.
Regarding silence on the excommunications, one should keep in mind that Fr. Hewko, Fr. Pfeiffer and Bp Moran have parted ways. After this parting, neither Fr. Hewko nor Fr. Pfeiffer can be held complicit for the excommunications from Bp. Moran.[...]
Dear Susan and Sean,
Are you inferring that since Fr. Pfeiffer has parted ways with the SSPX, he should remain silent about their errors? We know this is false. And to state this with respect to Moran's errors shows is a double standard and disingenuous. Dear Admin, To indicate that we and/or Fr. Pfeiffer are using double standards and are disingenuous, is incorrect. Fr. Pfeiffer has given sermons and conferences that have discussed Sacraments, the case of Fr. Poisson, and addressed questions regarding Bp. Moran well after his disassociation from him 6 months ago. If you have a specific question for Fr. Pfeiffer to answer, then you can call him. From our point of view, to be complicit one needs to show involvement or participation in an action. After a split or disassociation, an individual/group cannot be held complicit for another individual's/group's post-partition actions, even if they were once associated with each other. We did not say that one must remain silent about the errors. We said after their parting from Bp. Moran, neither Fr. Hewko nor Fr. Pfeiffer can be held complicit for the excommunications from Bp. Moran. Pax Christi. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2019 3:21:57 GMT
Admin,
Can you please help answer this previous question. It is a crucial beginning to understand with Catholic discourse the new rite question and in our own lives regarding the present pope and his role leading the Church.
Question, If you as a traditional Catholic believe pope Francis (and Benedict XVI prior) to be the true pope, and you pray for him in your masses, benedictions, and private prayers, as well as for your local bishop, how is it that you say the new rite of consecration is doubtful in this discussion yet acknowledge the new rite pope Francis to be the true pope and the new rite local bishop to be your bishop?
Pope Francis and his predecessor Benedict are to be taken at face value Bishops of Rome unless there is POSITIVE DOUBT after proper investigation according to their particular case as advised by Archbishop Lefebvre in such cases that require conditional ordination. Let Holy Mother Church judge on these matters in the future. For now let us continue to pray for Pope Francis, that the Lord will send an Angel as he did to St Peter, to break the chains of his modernist errors and lead him to the True liberty of the Catholic Faith. Dear Fidelis, Fr. Hewko holds the position of the objective dubiousness of the New Rite ordinations and Episcopal consecrations. Thus in this view, one cannot take Pope Francis or his predecessor Benedict XVI at face value as their New Rite consecrations are dubious. The Admin echoed this in a previous post: If the position is now changed to what you state in your post: when did the postion change from the previous position of the objective dubiousness of the New Rite ordinations and Episcopal consecrations? Pax Christi. |
|
