“Anecdotally, we have found that separating such issues, and allowing them to be dealt with individually, seems to “take the sting” out of the Pope Question itself, and makes it easier and more likely for sedeplenists to progress towards the conclusion of the extended vacancy of the Holy See.
By contrast, the agitation and fear which comes under the pressure of making high-stakes decisions are not conducive to discerning the truth of the matter.”
I am living proof of the benefits and advantages of taking this approach, which otherwise would have been too overwhelming.
Systematically dealing with the issues surrounding the pope question is essential, but how few there are with the patience to do it!
I mentioned in my 3-part series on Newman’s theory of converging probabilities, that in former years it almost seemed as though one could use the same theory AGAINST a claim of vacancy of the Holy See, because there are so many apparent obstacles/objections raised against it.
But it was only because someone like WM Review had the wisdom and patience to systematically address all these issues one by one, that the insufficiency of the premises against a vacancy could be exposed, allowing the issue of the legitimacy of the conciliar claimants itself could be given a fair hearing.
i listened to the article with a bit of curiosity. I have learned few things but in fairness i come out of my own practical experience… since i have begun to assist on the mass daily (novus ordo most of the times on sundays tlm) my life has changed for better, received grace to overcome addiction, combated lot of difficulties and passed through difficul times as well in peace, my relationships had improved and in general fulfilment in life and sense for living is on different level. No i am no saint but i believe a grace has acted in my life beside mass lot of time passed on knees adoring our lord, lots of rosaries etc…You see to me it seems that we make of ritual of mass a bit of like programming code, if we change maybe even one symbol in the text it will just stop working. But i truly believe the center of the mass is a Person of Christ. What matter is our relationship with Him. From that relationship everything changes. Truly i believe we live in such a confusing times that on each side there will be those that will be saved and damned and not because one says in the mas NUC and UC. (btw. to find a mass NUC is pretty hard i dont even know a place where i could find one where i live its simply not an option for most of people only for very few choosen ones…this is also a problem). But God will judge our heart and our intentions with which what and how we did.
and i do consider last 2 popes anti-popes yet i still assist on UC masses.
Did this question ever arise in an era of an anti-pope in the past? I would expect that the naming of an anti-pope during mass would have generated the same controversy and would have been addressed by theologians if not the hierarchy itself at that time or subsequent to its resolution and provide some form of reference to the sedevacant position today.
Since that Church has had the opportunity to address this situation in the past and has not chosen to render it as inadmissible, it is permissible to attend an una cum Mass.
It will be argued that the present circumstances are different because we've not been in a situation where the papal claimants are publicly teaching already condemned errors.
We cannot speak on behalf of the Church where it hasn't rendered a specific judgement, however we can repeat what it has already taught which is what this article does well.
"The priest whose Mass they are hearing is a member of the Church and presumably in good standing (abstracting from the problems inherent in taking upon oneself Holy Orders without being called or sent by the Authority)."
Doesn't this presume that the priest is validly ordained?
The issue won't be settled until we have a pope. On the one hand Fr Cekada criticised Traditional clergy who "[Set themselves] up like an ad hoc minimagisterium, lawmaker and ecclesiastical judge with power to enforce its will - Follow me or die, in other words." On the other preached the NUC Ultimatum - no sacraments unless our sacraments or mortal sin by sacraments. I hope and pray the 'you must accept an heresiarch as the Pope' SSPX hardliners and the hardline NUCs consider how holding Our Lord ransom to these "minimagisteriums" is wearing the faithful down. Articles like this are a welcome relief.
Even since I've come to accept that sedevacantism is the only explanation for what's happened to the Catholic religion since Vatican II, I don't presume to tell others what to do in terms of where they go to Mass. I've been criticized for being "sede-cumenical"—a term I coined for myself, referring to how I am open to dialoguing with sedevacantists of whatever apostolate, Feeneyites excepted—because I don't take a side on Thesis-vs-Totalism, nor am I a hard-liner on insisting that one *must* only go to a non-una cum chapel or Mass center to avoid not only scandal but committing mortal sin.
I'm just a lay woman still only a couple of years into being sedevacantist. I am nowhere near being an expert on the position and I have no business telling others what to do. I have been on the receiving end of pressure to either attend only non-una cum Masses or watch a livestream at home; but what does that do for my ability to remain in a state of sanctifying grace, unless God provides the proportionate helps to maintain it for a very long period of time until I'm able to have access to a sedevacantist priest for Mass and Sacraments? My only desire is to retain my faith and to keep persevering towards the goal of reaching Heaven. Michael Hudson has brought some more sanity to the chaotic mess this issue often creates.
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the deal with the Feeneyites and why would dialoguing with them be bad? I ask this because there are some Feeneyite nuns somewhat near me but I had only heard nice or neutral things about them from diocesan tridentine mass people offhand.
Excellent article. The title says it all. The shepherd is struck, and the sheep are scattered, so it’s only natural that as the crisis extends across the decades, all the little enclaves of resistance will develop eccentric and/or untenable positions in need of periodic pruning. In this case, Mr. Hudson has provided the shears, and we are fortunate he had them on hand. The issue was one that had lurked in the periphery of my mind for some time, and I’m glad to be rid of it. Hat tip to Mr. Hudson!
The priest says 'una cum' in silentio, so how would you actually know what he says? What if he says to you, "I am not telling you what I say at that part of the Mass." There is no law, of which I am aware, that requires him to inform others of what he says. And if the priest says "Pope Leo" in a sermon, this does not imply that he believes that Leo is pope, any more than if a person were to say "President Biden" if he believed Biden were not president. The people take him for pope or president.
It has occurred to me that in order for this article to achieve maximum effect we must pray for this to happen so that it might soften the hearts of those trapped in the NUC error.
"An associate of ours submitted to us these objections some time ago with regard to the positions and policies of the Institute on the subject of the una cum Mass. Some of these have already been discussed in the body of the paper, and others we find objectionable, but we feel that presenting them in full, without comment, will benefit the reader."
I'm not even clear that Hudson agrees with that point. They are a list of points from a contact of his, and he says that he agrees with some, but that "others we find objectionable." I think the tenor of the article would suggest he doesn't agree with that point.
As for WM, I can only speak for myself and I would want to think carefully about what each othe terms means in that phrase before making a claim like that.
SD Wright said:
“Anecdotally, we have found that separating such issues, and allowing them to be dealt with individually, seems to “take the sting” out of the Pope Question itself, and makes it easier and more likely for sedeplenists to progress towards the conclusion of the extended vacancy of the Holy See.
By contrast, the agitation and fear which comes under the pressure of making high-stakes decisions are not conducive to discerning the truth of the matter.”
I am living proof of the benefits and advantages of taking this approach, which otherwise would have been too overwhelming.
Bravissimo.
Thanks Sean, gratifying to read.
Systematically dealing with the issues surrounding the pope question is essential, but how few there are with the patience to do it!
I mentioned in my 3-part series on Newman’s theory of converging probabilities, that in former years it almost seemed as though one could use the same theory AGAINST a claim of vacancy of the Holy See, because there are so many apparent obstacles/objections raised against it.
But it was only because someone like WM Review had the wisdom and patience to systematically address all these issues one by one, that the insufficiency of the premises against a vacancy could be exposed, allowing the issue of the legitimacy of the conciliar claimants itself could be given a fair hearing.
Thanks again!
i listened to the article with a bit of curiosity. I have learned few things but in fairness i come out of my own practical experience… since i have begun to assist on the mass daily (novus ordo most of the times on sundays tlm) my life has changed for better, received grace to overcome addiction, combated lot of difficulties and passed through difficul times as well in peace, my relationships had improved and in general fulfilment in life and sense for living is on different level. No i am no saint but i believe a grace has acted in my life beside mass lot of time passed on knees adoring our lord, lots of rosaries etc…You see to me it seems that we make of ritual of mass a bit of like programming code, if we change maybe even one symbol in the text it will just stop working. But i truly believe the center of the mass is a Person of Christ. What matter is our relationship with Him. From that relationship everything changes. Truly i believe we live in such a confusing times that on each side there will be those that will be saved and damned and not because one says in the mas NUC and UC. (btw. to find a mass NUC is pretty hard i dont even know a place where i could find one where i live its simply not an option for most of people only for very few choosen ones…this is also a problem). But God will judge our heart and our intentions with which what and how we did.
and i do consider last 2 popes anti-popes yet i still assist on UC masses.
thanks WM review for you work!
Did this question ever arise in an era of an anti-pope in the past? I would expect that the naming of an anti-pope during mass would have generated the same controversy and would have been addressed by theologians if not the hierarchy itself at that time or subsequent to its resolution and provide some form of reference to the sedevacant position today.
It didn’t otherwise the matter would’ve already been settled by the Church and there would be no room for any controversy.
Perhaps that can be added to Appendix II:
Since that Church has had the opportunity to address this situation in the past and has not chosen to render it as inadmissible, it is permissible to attend an una cum Mass.
It will be argued that the present circumstances are different because we've not been in a situation where the papal claimants are publicly teaching already condemned errors.
We cannot speak on behalf of the Church where it hasn't rendered a specific judgement, however we can repeat what it has already taught which is what this article does well.
Thanks for publishing this article. I hope it is the death knell for the false NUC teaching.
Thank you. Respectfully, I lean toward agreeing with much that is presented in Appendix II.
"The priest whose Mass they are hearing is a member of the Church and presumably in good standing (abstracting from the problems inherent in taking upon oneself Holy Orders without being called or sent by the Authority)."
Doesn't this presume that the priest is validly ordained?
novusordowatch.org/2018/06/unholy-orders-50-years-invalid-ordinations
Yes.
The issue won't be settled until we have a pope. On the one hand Fr Cekada criticised Traditional clergy who "[Set themselves] up like an ad hoc minimagisterium, lawmaker and ecclesiastical judge with power to enforce its will - Follow me or die, in other words." On the other preached the NUC Ultimatum - no sacraments unless our sacraments or mortal sin by sacraments. I hope and pray the 'you must accept an heresiarch as the Pope' SSPX hardliners and the hardline NUCs consider how holding Our Lord ransom to these "minimagisteriums" is wearing the faithful down. Articles like this are a welcome relief.
Even since I've come to accept that sedevacantism is the only explanation for what's happened to the Catholic religion since Vatican II, I don't presume to tell others what to do in terms of where they go to Mass. I've been criticized for being "sede-cumenical"—a term I coined for myself, referring to how I am open to dialoguing with sedevacantists of whatever apostolate, Feeneyites excepted—because I don't take a side on Thesis-vs-Totalism, nor am I a hard-liner on insisting that one *must* only go to a non-una cum chapel or Mass center to avoid not only scandal but committing mortal sin.
I'm just a lay woman still only a couple of years into being sedevacantist. I am nowhere near being an expert on the position and I have no business telling others what to do. I have been on the receiving end of pressure to either attend only non-una cum Masses or watch a livestream at home; but what does that do for my ability to remain in a state of sanctifying grace, unless God provides the proportionate helps to maintain it for a very long period of time until I'm able to have access to a sedevacantist priest for Mass and Sacraments? My only desire is to retain my faith and to keep persevering towards the goal of reaching Heaven. Michael Hudson has brought some more sanity to the chaotic mess this issue often creates.
Well done!
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the deal with the Feeneyites and why would dialoguing with them be bad? I ask this because there are some Feeneyite nuns somewhat near me but I had only heard nice or neutral things about them from diocesan tridentine mass people offhand.
Excellent article. The title says it all. The shepherd is struck, and the sheep are scattered, so it’s only natural that as the crisis extends across the decades, all the little enclaves of resistance will develop eccentric and/or untenable positions in need of periodic pruning. In this case, Mr. Hudson has provided the shears, and we are fortunate he had them on hand. The issue was one that had lurked in the periphery of my mind for some time, and I’m glad to be rid of it. Hat tip to Mr. Hudson!
The priest says 'una cum' in silentio, so how would you actually know what he says? What if he says to you, "I am not telling you what I say at that part of the Mass." There is no law, of which I am aware, that requires him to inform others of what he says. And if the priest says "Pope Leo" in a sermon, this does not imply that he believes that Leo is pope, any more than if a person were to say "President Biden" if he believed Biden were not president. The people take him for pope or president.
It has occurred to me that in order for this article to achieve maximum effect we must pray for this to happen so that it might soften the hearts of those trapped in the NUC error.
"A Mass is rendered intrinsically evil by being offered in union with and under the auspices of a formally schismatic hierarchy."
Where does the Church teach that a Mass offered by a formally schismatic hierarchy is intrinsically evil?
Note the text that came before from Hudson:
"An associate of ours submitted to us these objections some time ago with regard to the positions and policies of the Institute on the subject of the una cum Mass. Some of these have already been discussed in the body of the paper, and others we find objectionable, but we feel that presenting them in full, without comment, will benefit the reader."
Thanks. Does WM agree with Mr. Hudson on this point?
I'm not even clear that Hudson agrees with that point. They are a list of points from a contact of his, and he says that he agrees with some, but that "others we find objectionable." I think the tenor of the article would suggest he doesn't agree with that point.
As for WM, I can only speak for myself and I would want to think carefully about what each othe terms means in that phrase before making a claim like that.
Okay. Thanks.
I don't agree with that point. The Eucharistic Sacrifice cannot itself become evil, although the minister can sin by offering it.
Thank you for the clarification.