Please correct me if this is wrong, but the "una cum" portion of the Canon of the Mass is not saying that the Holy Sacrifice is being offered in union with whomever's name is mentioned as the pope. Rather, it is being offered FOR the Church, together with (una cum) the pope, bishop, and all true Catholics. The "una cum" is there to include the pope, bishop, and faithful in the intentions.
That doesn't negate the erroneous choice on the part of the priest of mentioning any of the V2 "clergy" in the Canon. But does it invalidate the Mass? I ask because if I had the choice of attending an Una Cum or a non Una Cum Mass, I would absolutely choose the non Una Cum. But if an Una Cum Mass offered by a validly ordained priest is my only option for the present time, isn't it better to attend in order to gain the graces from the Mass and receive valid sacraments, than to stay away?
It's a personal choice. But in any case, I find it deeply offensive and at the very least don't join in in saying the name during the parayers. That is my suggesion.
You have the backng of all who seek God when discussing the current Vatican. The mask is now off and those who are against Christ proclaim this loudly.
Too many modernizers have added to or subverted the sacraments. They bring in National issues, syncretic local beliefs, and forget that we worship Chris in their false concern for the feelings of the congregation. Worship is not about us. It is about God.
I like the consequences to clerics for preaching error. We need more anchorite (ordo silentonium) communities: their role is to provide for and contain those in error.
You're talking nonsense and flat out lying. papal primacy was always there for over 1000 years. Stop making shit up as you byzantines invariably do. Look it up.
You even re-confirmed it at the council of Florence then reneged it again. Once a backstabbing traitor, always a backstabbing traitor.
Reading comprehension and for context is a thing. Papal primacy was there for a 1000 years BEFORE the Eastern Schismatics "suddenly" decided it was an issue, is the point.
Nonsense. But your side has been lying about everything for centuries. Go on and try and deny the Council of Florence as well or the backstabbing for three crusades in a row next. Schismatics gonna schismatically lie. It's what they do.
You do realise Tea originated in China, right? One idiotic non-sequitur deserves another. Especially since if you read the article I expressley stated this. Do you also drool while you try to keep your place with your index finger as you read?
it could not be simpler 👍
Longtime Follower and Cradle Catholic. Still trying to understand the https://popehead.substack.com/p/eucharistic-miracles. Someone trying to discern the Sede position honestly.
Not sure what is the issue with understanding it?
Is pachama a blasphemy, yes or no? If yes, then you might want to EDUCATE yourself on how a "legitimate" pope could commit such a blatant blasphemy.
Regarding footnote #1:
Please correct me if this is wrong, but the "una cum" portion of the Canon of the Mass is not saying that the Holy Sacrifice is being offered in union with whomever's name is mentioned as the pope. Rather, it is being offered FOR the Church, together with (una cum) the pope, bishop, and all true Catholics. The "una cum" is there to include the pope, bishop, and faithful in the intentions.
That doesn't negate the erroneous choice on the part of the priest of mentioning any of the V2 "clergy" in the Canon. But does it invalidate the Mass? I ask because if I had the choice of attending an Una Cum or a non Una Cum Mass, I would absolutely choose the non Una Cum. But if an Una Cum Mass offered by a validly ordained priest is my only option for the present time, isn't it better to attend in order to gain the graces from the Mass and receive valid sacraments, than to stay away?
Thank you, G.
It's a personal choice. But in any case, I find it deeply offensive and at the very least don't join in in saying the name during the parayers. That is my suggesion.
You have the backng of all who seek God when discussing the current Vatican. The mask is now off and those who are against Christ proclaim this loudly.
Too many modernizers have added to or subverted the sacraments. They bring in National issues, syncretic local beliefs, and forget that we worship Chris in their false concern for the feelings of the congregation. Worship is not about us. It is about God.
I like the consequences to clerics for preaching error. We need more anchorite (ordo silentonium) communities: their role is to provide for and contain those in error.
You're banned for one month for posting your monomania which has nothing to do with the OP. Get help.
You're talking nonsense and flat out lying. papal primacy was always there for over 1000 years. Stop making shit up as you byzantines invariably do. Look it up.
You even re-confirmed it at the council of Florence then reneged it again. Once a backstabbing traitor, always a backstabbing traitor.
Reading comprehension and for context is a thing. Papal primacy was there for a 1000 years BEFORE the Eastern Schismatics "suddenly" decided it was an issue, is the point.
Nonsense. But your side has been lying about everything for centuries. Go on and try and deny the Council of Florence as well or the backstabbing for three crusades in a row next. Schismatics gonna schismatically lie. It's what they do.
You do realise Tea originated in China, right? One idiotic non-sequitur deserves another. Especially since if you read the article I expressley stated this. Do you also drool while you try to keep your place with your index finger as you read?