There are Traditionalists that have nothing better to do than needlessly attack other Traditionalists. Truly, "when the shepherd is struck the sheep are scattered." I don't enjoy getting into squabbles that take our efforts off fighting Bergoglio, but there are times I must. On July 4th, Fr. Anthony Cekada wrote an article entitled Spiritual Cooties: The SSPV Sacramental Penalties After Thirty Years. It marks Fr. Cekada's 30 year departure from the SSPV, and it can be found here:http://www.fathercekada.com/. Fr. Cekada is to be commended for his contributions in promoting sedevacantism and exposing the Vatican II sect. However, when he writes screeds like this he does a great disservice to all, especially himself.
The article (correctly) deplores the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV) for refusing to give the sacraments to those who are ordained/affiliated with Thuc line bishops. Fr. Cekada likens this to the children's game "cooties," whereby you "catch" a spiritual cootie infestation (i.e., made up penalty) by receiving sacraments from a Traditionalist priest who the SSPV declared "cootie contaminated" (afflicted by that made up penalty). If you affiliate with Thuc line clergy, even if not ordained by them, you "catch" the alleged scandal. I'll pass over the fact that the SSPV thinks they are protecting people from dubious sacraments (even though the arguments against Thuc hold no water). Fr. Cekada then goes on to claim that Bishop Clarence Kelly is like cult leader L. Ron Hubbard of Scientology. He accuses Fr. William Jenkins of:
classic cult manipulation techniques: long, rambling sermons and speeches (obviously unprepared) delivered in his trance-inducing basso profundo voice; public complaints about his supposed health problems that aimed at winning pity and sympathy; late-night phone calls to check up on the loyalty of supporters; heavy doses of empty bluster and indignation (“Can you imagine? Can you really imagine?”); not-so-subtle appeals for pats on the head (“I’ll leave the school if the people want me to!” “Oh, no, Father, please, not that!”), and habitual late starts for Masses and other public activities (because poor Father is just so busy or so sick).
(Those who have seen Fr. Jenkins in action even recently will recognize that his methods have not changed.)
Fr. Cekada seems incapable of disagreeing without ascribing the worst motives to his opponents, and resorts to puerile name-calling. I'd also like to know, for example, how Fr Cekada is certain Fr. Jenkins does not have any health problems. Was he there every time Fr. Jenkins was diagnosed by a physician? Did he obtain his medical records in violation of HIPAA law? These attacks on good Traditionalist clergymen are deplorable. Is the SSPV wrong on their position? Yes. Are they a "cult"? Not in the least. I know most of the SSPV clergy, and they are pious Traditionalist Catholics.
Ironically, if the SSPV is a "cult" then so is Bp.Dolan's and Fr. Cekada's St. Gertrude the Great Church. They deny Communion to those who attend "Una Cum" Masses of, e.g., Society of St Pius X (SSPX), which Fr. Cekada defends--since he invented that "cootie." I've written about this issue before, but this time I will approach it differently. I will assume, ad arguendo, that a Traditionalist priest (validly ordained, not in actual union with the Vatican II sect, rejecting Modernism and V2 errors, and using the Traditional Catholic Mass) becomes "in union with" Bergoglio and all his heresies by adding the name "Francis" to the Canon of the Mass. I will even concede, ad arguendo, that this priest himself becomes a heretic for doing so. Is the Mass Una Cum off limits? In a word: NO.
Undeclared Heretics
In Fr. Cekada's own article he cites Canon 2261 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which allows a Catholic to receive a sacrament from even an excommunicated priest "for any just cause." Yet Fr. Cekada assures us in his anti-Una writings that an Una Cum Mass offered by a Traditionalist priest, as I just described above, is so horrible:1) It's wrong to make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament in his chapel/church while such a Mass is being offered.
2) You can't receive Holy Viaticum from such a priest since It were consecrated during such a Mass.
3) It's OK to go to Confession to that priest where the Una Cum Mass is offered, provided it would not create a scandal.
That's pretty bad--and very infectious! Yet I credit Mr. John Daly for his insightful analysis of Cardinal De Lugo, one of the greatest approved theologians of the twentieth century. This work and its analysis appear below in red. It shows that Fr. Cekada's opinion (which he enforces like dogma), is far from certain (to say the least).
On Communication in Religious Rites with Heretics--Cardinal De Lugo
Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio 1.
The second chief doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and human affairs, or even in sacred and spiritual things. It is certain that we cannot communicate with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit profession of error. But the question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be present while he celebrates in a Catholic rite, etc.
This is denied by Basil. Pont. […] where he says, “one may not celebrate in the presence of a heretic on any grounds, not even by virtue of very grave fear,” and he takes this for granted and offers no proof of his claim. I am astonished that such a learned man should have failed to notice that the authority of all the Doctors is against him, and that they are followed by Sanchez […], Suarez […], Azor […] and others, followed by Hurtado […], and this [sc. the opposing view] is certain from what has been said, because an undeclared excommunicate who is not notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, need not be avoided even in sacred rites, as is established by the said litterae extravagantes (2), and the fact that he is a heretic is not a special reason why it should be unlawful unless on some other grounds there be scandal or irreverence against the faith, or some other such factor, all of which are extrinsic and not always found.
[…]
Thirdly however an object of greater doubt is whether Catholics may receive the sacraments from heretics who have not been declared to be such. This is denied by Azor. […], though he is scarcely consistent as to his grounds, for in the first place he says that this is due not only to the excommunication, but also to the heresy; but in the second place he says that it is on account not of the heresy but of the excommunication, inasmuch as every excommunicate, even occult, lacks jurisdiction. Soto agrees with him […], though on different grounds, since he thinks that all heretics and schismatics are deemed to have been excommunicated by name and to be vitandi.
But the opposite view is generally held [communis] and is the true one, unless it should be illicit in a given case for some other reason such as scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and Sanchez […], Suarez […], Hurtado […] and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of penance […] and of matrimony and the other sacraments […]. It is also certain by virtue of the said litterae extravagantes(3) in which communication with excommunicati tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and administration of the sacraments.
So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication, although on other grounds it may often be illicit to do so unless necessity should excuse as I have explained in the said places.
Analysis:
Cardinal de Lugo holds that the law forbidding Catholics to participate in worship together with heretics or schismatics does not apply unless those in question have been declared to be such by the Church (or belong to a condemned sect). And de Lugo also shows that the majority of theologians hold his view on this subject, against a minority who disagree.
This teaching is supported by Pope Martin V's Ad Evitanda Scandala which expressly allows communion with excommunicates until they have been condemned by the Church. Naturally this does not apply to what is certainly forbidden by divine law – as would be participation in a rite which itself contained heresy or which exposed oneself or others to grave scandal.
It should be noted that there has been no noteworthy change in ecclesiastical law on communication in sacris since de Lugo wrote. The law forbidding communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics remains in force (Canon 1258). And the law authorizing the reception of the sacraments from uncondemned excommunicates (Canon 2261) remains in force also.
The purpose of drawing attention to this text is not to encourage Catholics to frequent uncondemned heretics or schismatics for the sacraments.
It is to show those who have written on this topic without even discussing this distinction are insufficiently well informed about the matter and are unworthy of trust. The whole issue needs to be re-examined.
It seems very hard to avoid the conclusion that in our days de Lugo would have considered it not intrinsically illicit to assist at Mass offered una cum the Vatican II pseudo-popes, since he allows what is in fact a greater departure from the principle of assisting only at a fully Catholic Mass.
A Contemporary Theologian Weighs In
Fr. Martin Stepanich (1915-2012), an approved pre-Vatican II theologian and sedevacantist had much to say in response to the non-Una Cum position. From Fr. Stepanich:
We naturally had to wonder if there is some kind of teaching of popes and
theologians of pre-Vatican II times that would help clear up things for us on
that thorny una cum Benedicto issue.(Ratzinger/Benedict was false pope when Fr Stepanich wrote this letter--Introibo). A determined and well-meaning
attempt to settle things on that issue has indeed been made, although the
purpose was decidedly one-sided, inasmuch as the idea was to prove that in no
way could traditional Catholics ever lawfully attend una cum Benedicto
Masses. Research, described as "exhaustive research," has come with the
statement that "various popes and pre-Vatican II theologians taught that the
laity who assist actively at mass, in so doing manifest their consent and moral
cooperation with the priest as he offers the Sacrifice," but also to his adding
of the name of B16 to the Canon of the Mass.
However, it is as plain as could be that there is no indication whatsoever, in the above quote, that the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians referred to gave any thought at all to Masses with the name of a false pope in the una cum phrase of the Canon. They undoubtedly had in mind the kind of Mass they knew, that is, the traditional Latin Mass of the ages, not anything like the una cum Benedicto Masses that we know today.
The unquestionable fact is that the popes and theologians of pre-Vatican II times did not see with their own eyes the Modernist popes promoting a plainly new un-Catholic religion, the way we have been doing, nor did they hear with their own ears the false teaching of modernist popes and theologians, nor did they ever get to read their modernist un-Catholic writings. So they did not have occasion to warn against, and condemn, Masses like the una cum Benedicto Masses that today’s traditional theologians, as well as informed lay Catholics, have been obliged to condemn repeatedly in these Vatican II times. Pre-Vatican II popes and theologians did not address the una cum Benedicto Mass issue, of which they knew nothing first hand the way we have known it.
If we try to use the words of popes and pre-Vatican II theologians, as already quoted above, and make them say that attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses is always absolutely forbidden under any and all circumstances, it is we who are really doing that kind of forbidding, not the popes and the pre-Vatican II theologians. Just try to find anything in the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians that totally and absolutely forbids any and all attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses by traditional sedevacantist Catholics. It just isn’t there! (Emphasis mine---Introibo)
However, it is as plain as could be that there is no indication whatsoever, in the above quote, that the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians referred to gave any thought at all to Masses with the name of a false pope in the una cum phrase of the Canon. They undoubtedly had in mind the kind of Mass they knew, that is, the traditional Latin Mass of the ages, not anything like the una cum Benedicto Masses that we know today.
The unquestionable fact is that the popes and theologians of pre-Vatican II times did not see with their own eyes the Modernist popes promoting a plainly new un-Catholic religion, the way we have been doing, nor did they hear with their own ears the false teaching of modernist popes and theologians, nor did they ever get to read their modernist un-Catholic writings. So they did not have occasion to warn against, and condemn, Masses like the una cum Benedicto Masses that today’s traditional theologians, as well as informed lay Catholics, have been obliged to condemn repeatedly in these Vatican II times. Pre-Vatican II popes and theologians did not address the una cum Benedicto Mass issue, of which they knew nothing first hand the way we have known it.
If we try to use the words of popes and pre-Vatican II theologians, as already quoted above, and make them say that attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses is always absolutely forbidden under any and all circumstances, it is we who are really doing that kind of forbidding, not the popes and the pre-Vatican II theologians. Just try to find anything in the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians that totally and absolutely forbids any and all attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses by traditional sedevacantist Catholics. It just isn’t there! (Emphasis mine---Introibo)
Historical Examples that Weigh Against The Una Cum Cootie
1. On December 20, 1949, The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office promulgated the decree Instructio ad locorum Ordinarios, “De Motione Ecumenica” which declared that the recitation in common by a mixed group of Catholics and non-Catholics of the Our Father or of a prayer approved by the Church does not constitute a forbidden act of communicatio in sacris (loosly, "communication in sacred things" or worship/sacraments in common with non-Catholics). Divine Law does forbid communicatio in sacris if the minister is not validly ordained, if the rite used is not wholly Catholic or if the circumstances are such that sacramental communion is equivalent to a profession of heresy — or on grounds of scandal. In regards to "scandal" it must be noted that it does not mean people would be "shocked" ("oh, my goodness!"), nor does it mean "shocking to the senses" as in civil law ("how dare someone do that"!). In theology, it means something that provokes others to commit sin.
2. The example of Blessed Noel Pinot in Revolutionary France speaks volumes. When the clergy were summoned by the Revolutionary Government to subscribe to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, this parish priest observed three essential facts: (a) it was clear to him that the document was heretical and schismatic; (b) it had not yet been condemned as such by the Holy See, and (c) not all priests shared his severe judgement. Hence, he steadfastly refused to sign the text himself, come what may, but he continued to share the ministry of the church of which he was pastor with his curate, Fr. Garanger, who, despite Pinot’s remonstrances, did sign.
“In any event,” writes Blessed Noel’s biographer, “as the Pope had not yet pronounced on the subject of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, Fr. Garanger had not incurred any censure as a result of taking the oath of fidelity to it. Fr. Pinot trusted that the instructions Rome was expected soon to issue on the subject would open his eyes and meanwhile he allowed him to continue his activities in the parish as before…” (See Mgr Francis Trochu, Vie du Bienheureux Noël Pinot, p. 65). [Once more I give full credit to Mr. John Daly for the historical examples---Introibo]
Why is it not possible to give the same benefit to those R&R clergy who seem sincerely to intend to adhere to the Catholic faith and wrongly imagine that Vatican II and Bergoglio are in some way compatible with that faith?
“In any event,” writes Blessed Noel’s biographer, “as the Pope had not yet pronounced on the subject of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, Fr. Garanger had not incurred any censure as a result of taking the oath of fidelity to it. Fr. Pinot trusted that the instructions Rome was expected soon to issue on the subject would open his eyes and meanwhile he allowed him to continue his activities in the parish as before…” (See Mgr Francis Trochu, Vie du Bienheureux Noël Pinot, p. 65). [Once more I give full credit to Mr. John Daly for the historical examples---Introibo]
Why is it not possible to give the same benefit to those R&R clergy who seem sincerely to intend to adhere to the Catholic faith and wrongly imagine that Vatican II and Bergoglio are in some way compatible with that faith?
Conclusion
Fr. Cekada attacks the good clerics of the SSPV as a "cult" because of wrongly held theological opinions, and derides these opinions they enforce as "spiritual cooties." Yet Fr. Cekada himself has become the very "follow me or die" cleric he once abhored. Here is a list of his cooties:
Fr. Cekada longs for the day the SSPV stops the nonsense they created. So do I. Furthermore, I also long for the day all Traditionalists are sedevacantists. Until then, I hope Fr. Cekada stops doing the very thing he accuses the SSPV of doing; enforcing made-up rules.I'm not R&R, but to tell people who have no where else to go it's mortal sin to attend Una Cum (thereby depriving themselves of many graces staying away) when there is no Magisterium to decide the issue is wrong. I have seen Fr. Cekada attack the clergy of the SSPV with much vitriol. To their credit, they don't give it back to him. They act with the decorum one would expect of a Traditionalist priest or bishop. I hope Fr. Cekada will start behaving as a priest should, and he can look to Bishop Santay and Fr. Baumberger as examples.
The "spiritual cooties" do have a cure: Stop enforcing theological issues upon which there can be honest disagreement, and there is no Magisterial authority to decide. "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."
- Attending the Revised Holy Week Rites of Pope Pius XII gives you the "Masonic-BUGnini" Cootie
- Receiving Holy Viaticum from an SSPX priest is wrong because the Sacred Host was consecrated during an Una Cum Mass.
- You can't make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament where the Una Cum Mass is offered.
- You can deny Holy Communion to a member of the SSPX or who attend Mass with another R&R priest.
- You can't go to Confession to a Traditionalist priest where the Una Cum is offered if it causes "scandal"
Fr. Cekada longs for the day the SSPV stops the nonsense they created. So do I. Furthermore, I also long for the day all Traditionalists are sedevacantists. Until then, I hope Fr. Cekada stops doing the very thing he accuses the SSPV of doing; enforcing made-up rules.I'm not R&R, but to tell people who have no where else to go it's mortal sin to attend Una Cum (thereby depriving themselves of many graces staying away) when there is no Magisterium to decide the issue is wrong. I have seen Fr. Cekada attack the clergy of the SSPV with much vitriol. To their credit, they don't give it back to him. They act with the decorum one would expect of a Traditionalist priest or bishop. I hope Fr. Cekada will start behaving as a priest should, and he can look to Bishop Santay and Fr. Baumberger as examples.
The "spiritual cooties" do have a cure: Stop enforcing theological issues upon which there can be honest disagreement, and there is no Magisterial authority to decide. "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteGreat and timely article as the chasm among the sedes increasingly grows, unfortunately.
I saved the below linked Tweet from Fr. Desposito which I found 4 years ago when I was new to Tradition and doing research on the Una Cum. If I hadn't seen the Tweet with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it!! The Tweet speaks for itself:
Fr. Desposito:. "One single 'una cum Mass' is more offensive to God than all abortions ever performed. Just saying...". Twitter
https://mobiletwitter.com/
FrDesposito/status/
434837570053087232
Joann,
DeleteIncredible that anyone could say such!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI believe Fr.Desposito was trying to convey in the above cited Tweet that by attending an Una Cum Mass it was as sinful as abortions. That was my understanding of the Tweet, anyhow. It amazes me the arrogance and nerve of some of these Priests who just make things up as they go along to suit their own private beliefs and then try to force them on others!!
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteThat’s how I understand the tweet as well. Ridiculous. Yes, making up rules and enforcing them is wrong beyond description!
—-Introibo
Introibo, thank you for this timely article. Transportation circumstances warrant that I attend an SSPV chapel at least temporarily. I attend CMRI and other Thuc-affiliated chapels, so am banned from receiving Communion at SSPV, though I do go to confession there.
ReplyDeleteWhat would you think if I received Communion anyway? Are we bound in any way to obey these unjust Communion restrictions?
God bless you.
Barbara,
DeleteThere is no need to stay away from Communion because of man-made, unjust rules. They do not come from the Church. In my opinion, you should NOT refrain from Holy Communion as long as you are properly disposed (state of grace and fasting).
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Of course you should stay away from Holy Communion from the Orthodox or Old Catholics or any other non-Catholic sect even thought it is valid as you know. I just wanted to make that clarification. The Orthodox are like the valid una-cum Francis priests in reverse. The Orthodox reject valid Popes as being the supreme head of the Church and the una-cum Francis sect insist that a non-Catholic is the Supreme head of the Church.
DeleteI try to give the benefit of the doubt when warranted but I'm still trying to figure out how properly trained clergy not know that we must submit to a valid Pope. And if one who claims he is Pope cannot be submitted then he is not a valid Pope.
If we can know for certain Francis is not Pope can we also no for certain that we should have nothing to do with him including Masses offered in union with him?
I ask not pretending to know the answer.
John Gregory,
DeleteThe question is are those Masses actually in Union with him? Theologian Stepanich thinks not. The pre-V2 Theologians and canonists never addressed the issue. Since V2 sect are not legally declared heretics, someone may approach them for Mass and Communion. Ideal? No. We should want the name of the false pope gone? Yes. But for those who have no other option, it’s an option they can exercise.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Hello Introibo,
DeleteWe are left with opinions that won't be settled until we get a pope. An opinion for Father Stepanich is one I highly respect.
I lack the competence to even begin to grasp how as Mass offered una cum apostate is not in union with him.
I do understand a priest could be acting in good faith however and will to be in union with a valid pope and states the objectionable phrase for that purpose.
John Lane who I also highly respect and who teaches the pro una cum heretic better than most has a large family, who only had the SSPX choice and he did not want to deny his children the sacraments. He may have come from 100% unbiased view. But I could see why, in that situation he may not have been 100% impartial as hard as he tried.
I do agree with you and you state it well. I would never think of using the sacraments as a weapon and impose policies on people in regards to where thy go to Mass. It really comes to not being willfully blind and acting upon an informed conscience. If you search long and hard for a definitive answer and never find either side completely irrefutable go with your gut I guess. You can't be blamed for not knowing what it isn't reasonable to expect a lay-person to know, for not being able to settle a dispute that was never addressed before the apostasy.
It is very wrong for clergy to insist on their view of unsettled controversies. They can run their parish as they like but can't make people not go to Mass when on vacation elsewhere or for any reason. In this case the people have the right to chose :o)
John Gregory,
DeleteI’m in basic agreement with you.
—-Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThank you. We are probably more in agreement than you even think. On the unsettled things I have always tended to throw out arguments on either side where I think intelligent and knowledgeable people like you will respond just to see if I can get more clarity. Strengthening my clarity on such issues decreases the chance that I might mislead anyone. And you have helped me on this issue.
Thank you very much,
John
John Lane, had options to go to CMRI for years but chose to stay in SSPX.
DeleteTraditional Catholics need unity not tabloid insults and gossip!
ReplyDeletePlease pray all Lefebvre,Thuc,and Mendez line priests/bishops unify and work together.
I myself attend Thuc line & SSPX chapels and occasionally an SSPV chapel.
Bishop Markus Ramolla agrees with us,trust me.
Excellent blog entry!!!
God bless.
-Andrew
Thank you Andrew! We need more unity indeed!
Delete—-Introibo
Not trying to argue with you, but this is what I think of the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteI believe along with yourself that Fr. Cekada is right about the unjust Communion rules the SSPV have made up against Catholics who attend Thuc line clergy. I personally know the first victims of the SSPV split. There was consequential effects which broke up the family (a big family) and it continued after Bp. Dolan became a bishop in 1993. My thing is, one could argue the same reasoning against the SSPV. The SSPV argument doubts the intention of Archbishop Thuc (senile as they say) when he made the consecrations rendering them doubtful as to whether he validity confected a sacrament (meaning from their point of view Bps. Dolan, Sanborn, Neville, McKenna, Carmona, Vezelis and many others are doubtfully bishops and their priests are doubtful priests which further means no valid bishops or priests). If this is the case, then who is to say that Bp. Kelly's consecration from a retired Novus Ordo bishop Alfredo Méndez-Gonzalez had the right intention and wasn't "senile" when confecting the sacrament on him? What's even worse is there was a man (he wishes to remain anonymous) now a sedevacantist priest who was present at Bp. Kelly's consecration. He said the retired bishop had a hard time remembering the Rite and incorrectly (by accident) forgot to say some important words on three different occasions, two of which he was told to redo since they were part of the main form (a necessity of validity). After the third time he screwed up it was disputed what the witnesses heard and they allowed him to continue without a redo unlike the first two attempts. Who is to say this retired bishop on a third failed attempt validly confected the sacrament when the form itself was in question especially by the witnesses? There is a mulligan in golf but not doing the sacraments.
Anyways, Fr. Cekada shouldn't have detracted Fr. Jenkins. It makes him look bad regardless of whether it's true or not. As far as the cult issue, it's my opinion that all ex SSPX priests (now sedevacantist) who make up their own rules act like different cults. I'm not saying they are different cults, but everybody they mislead and potential could convert whom they lose will have to be answered for at judgement. Fr. Cekada calls his parish a Bugnini Free Zone because he rejects many changes made by Pius XII whom recognizes as the last pope. Could we not say his parish is a Pius XII free zone since Pius XII had the final say? Who is was pope, Bugninni or Pius XII? If Pius XII gave something harmful to the Church how is it right for Fr. Cekada to call him Pope when he refuses to obey some of his rules and yet expects other to obey his cootie principle?
Part I
I will continue with part 2 because I ran out of room.
Lee
Part 2
ReplyDeleteYou said, "I know most of the SSPV clergy, and they are pious Traditionalist Catholics." I knew many old valid priests in the Novus Ordo and a few younger invalid priests who were pious and who appeared as traditional Catholics (these whom I'm referring said the UNA CUM). The problem with all of them regardless of whether they didn't agree with the teachings of Vatican II is they recognized it as as part of the Catholic Church along with its "popes". Even though they are undeclared heretics, the problem is they are not teaching the Catholic Faith. Once I revealed to them what I believed and why, they didn't recognize me as a Catholic anymore nor would they give me communion at the UNA CUM because I was "scandalizing" the parish with sedevacantism. To them this means regardless of whether I'm an undeclared "heretic" that I'm for certain outside their church. These clergy whether they are valid or not in the Novus Ordo are not much different than sedevacnatist. In truth they are not Catholic even if they aren't declared by the proper authorities. They know the problems in their own Novus ordo religion and for the sake of convenience, retirement, or just not being seen as weird reject the truth. I say stay away from them even if you don't have any place else to go. Besides most UNA CUM Masses probably don't a offer a valid Mass anymore since the older generation of priests are dying off. Even if there is still an old pre 68 ordained priest who offered a valid UNA CUM Mass, what will the parishioner do when he dies? Probably continue going afterwards to a invalid Mass or possibly give up the Faith all together. The problem isn't that the UNA CUM is a cootie but rather a pact with the devil. The agreement is one can have their Latin Mass so long as you say there isn't anything wrong with Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass which of course is wrong.
God Bless Introibo and thank for the article,
Lee
Lee,
DeleteAwesome comment and I agree with almost all of what you wrote! Just two things: I’m pretty sure you are not talking about the Consecration of Bp Kelly, but the ordinations Of Frs Baumberger And Greenwell. There were three recitations with major problems. I hope they rectified it in private with Bp Kelly.
I do not endorse the Una Cum, as you know. If someone thinks they should stay away, THEY SHOULD! My problem is with enforcement. I know an old priest ordained in 1960 and 90 years old. He rejects V2 in its entirety and says Una Cum “just in case he can be converted.” If he passes he wants his parishioners to go to another “valid Catholic priest who offers the True Mass and has nothing to do with Francis.” He may be a vast minority, but I see nothing wrong with going to his Una Cum Mass.
Your comment was awesome and I thank you for sharing!!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Our Thuc line chapel rejects all changes after Dec 1950.
DeleteMy personal view is Pius XII lost his office in 1951.("new Easter Vigil" which violates
Council of Trent Session 7 Canon 13)
Una Cum is a non issue that only further divides traditional Catholics.
Thuc line clergy accept the BP.Mendez consecration of Bp.Kelly.
His consecration is said to have been recited correctly.
Introibo is correct,it's the ordinations of 1990 that were disputed.
-Andrew
Thank you,
DeleteI'm not familiar with the cases regarding Frs. Baumberger and Greenwell. I just know what I do based on what a bystander (perhaps a witness as well) now sedevacantist priest (Thuc line BTW) has said. He said he was at Bishop Kelly's consecration ceremony in 1993 and the old retired Novus Ordo bishop named Alfredo Méndez-Gonzalez messed up three times, was told to correct himself twice and on the third time was not told to redo his possible mistake in the words (the form) during the ritual. I'm just pushing back an argument that could be used against the SSPV since they attack the Thuc line bishops over a very similar issue regarding validity. Ironically Bp. Kelly and Bp. Dolan received consecrations one month apart, which makes one wonder if there is a power trip thing going on. Mr. Mario Derksen has a good website in defense of the Thuc bishops. Here is the link: http://www.thucbishops.com/
The SSPV also have a funky attitude towards the sedevacantist position. They are opinionist. Here is a good article by Bp. Sanborn which exposes their opinionist ideas: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Opinionism.pdf (BTW, I'm not a promoter of Bp. Sanborn, just using this article as an example).
The 90 yr. priest you know is a rare one indeed. I knew a priest ordained in 1942 (died in 2013) said the Una Cum Mass and said the New Mass once a yr (he told me so) because he was required to be obedient to "The Church." He recommended people to go to the SSPX or another independent non sedevacantist priest friend of his when he wasn't around.
Apart from the UNA CUM (indult united to the dioceses which in turn is united to apostate Rome) the SSPX UNA CUM's are having priests ordained by Novus Ordo bishops in the traditional Rite. While the Rite is valid when performed by a valid bishop, if the bishop who ordains is not valid, then that means a sacrament wouldn't be valid. Plus they have had Novus ordo priests officiating during some SSPX weddings. If any group is truly a cult then the SSPX are it. Rama Coomeraswamy even went as far as to call them a cult within a cult. They want union with Francis so long as he agrees to their terms but because it's the other way around, they back off. They want to be considered heroes standing up for tradition and the Catholic Faith, but reject in practice the tradition of submitting and obeying the one they call pope. Even when I was in the Novus Ordo religion, many from the indult back then and conservative Novus ordo recognized them as schismatics and wanted no part of them. What's the point of having a picture of Francis on the wall in the back of their Church if they reject him out all together. Might as well be sedevacantist, but they are too prideful. As far as I'm concerned I've never have had anything to do with the SSPX nor will I ever and I recommend others to stay away.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteYes, the issue of the validity of some SSPX priests is a serious one, but is independent of Una Cum issue. If the priest is valid, so is the Mass. If you warn others to stay away, that’s your right to do so. Telling people they MUST stay away under pain of sin—and not receive Holy Viaticum—-is wrong. That’s where I have the problem with Fr Cekada.
I respectfully think your friend was wrong. That scenario was with the 1990 ordinations as Andrew pointed out above.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Andrew,
DeleteInteresting that you go to a chapel that believes like that. I knew a Bp. Dymek (now deceased) who believed Pius XII excommunicated himself in 1952. So your chapel believes it was 1950, you personally believe it was 1951, and Bp. Dymek believed it was 1952. Why not 1947 when the encyclical Mediator Dei came out? Why not go further and say the Council of Trent condemned Pope St. Pius X who reformed the liturgy as much or possibly more so than Pius XII? I don't understand why so many trads have a problem with the changes by Pius XII. What's wrong with doing the vigil at night instead of the morning on Holy Saturday and in turn fasting the entire day as opposed to noon as many chapels practice? To me that's a harder discipline and being more traditional as they used to that in the early days of the Church. Are shortened prayers a bad thing so that way the average working man can attend on Good Friday? I don't get how they are considered harmful or considered as a lead to the Novus ordo when the Novus Ordo revision was so bad that even protestants attended.
Introibo,
I tend to agree with St. Basil even though everybody seems to disagree with him according to De Lugo. With all my experiences in trying to find the true Faith in the age of the great apostasy every time I get my hopes up in all these groups, they get brought down based on what I find out. I'm not suggesting Home alonism. Even though I don't completely agree with the CMRI on everything, they seem to be the most consistent and the most caring for souls with the Catholic Faith. There are other independent sedevacantist priest who think along the lines as them but they are few and far between. I believe the SSPV are valid I'm just showing how two can play their game when it comes to their objections to the Thuc line (I know you don't agree with them on that).
Thank you again,
Lee
The "new Easter Vigil" is much more than just a different starting time.
DeleteTradition in Action.org has a 15 part detailed series on all changes circa
1951-1962.
Bp.Dymek believed like me Pius XII lost his office in 1951 but WE DO NOT DEMAND PEOPLE AGREE WITH US LEST THEY BURN IN HELL.
Bp.Dymek,just like us,knew that we have no authority or jurisdiction.
Yes,I knew Bp.Dymek at one time and my current chapel leaves all of this for a future catholic pontiff to decide.
They simply ignore everything after Dec.1950.
Thank you all for your respectful comments.
-Andrew
Andrew,
DeleteBp. Dymek was a strange person not only because he was a hermit, but because of his beliefs. He believed someone attached to their venial sins would go to Hell if they died with all kinds of attachments to venial sins. This is heresy. Bp. Slupski asked him in the confession if he wanted to be a priest and not only did he accept it but he said that a Carmelite nun who was offering her sufferings for his vocation were answered and that was why he accepted Bp. Slupski's offer. Later when he became a bishop he said he didn't want to be called anything that acknowledged him as bishop and therefore preferred to be called "Fr." Dymek because he didn't want to create a two headed monster between him and Bp. Slupski. He said Vladimir Putin was secretly baptized a Catholic and had some other strange idea (I've now forgotten) regarding him and Fatima. He frequently got his historical facts wrong when speaking either from the pulpit or in person. After his death he apparently had a family that he hadn't seen in years and they were contacted. He believed it was 1952 when Pius XII excommunicated himself, not 1951 like you. He may have claimed he didn't demand nor cared that people believed as himself, but without saying it he really wanted people to believe what he did. I hate to say it but he was a total disaster and one of many reason why people won't be persuaded by the sedevacantist position and which makes sedevacantist Catholics look bad. My opinion of him was that he was delusional and wrong on just about everything. I almost wonder if he suffered some kind of mental problem.
I've read TIA's Pius XII's campaign smear. I asked you before why do you believe it was 1951 and not 1947 when Mediator Dei came out that Pius XII was no longer pope. Why not say Pope St. Pius X was not a pope (or saint) when he reformed the liturgy especially after you quoted the Council of Trent?
Lee
Correct me if I'm wrong,please.
DeletePius X moved holy communion to after the Priest received Holy Communion instead of after Leonine Prayers,the ages of First Holy Communion and Confirmation,and the Divine Office,correct?
Bp.Dymek requested to be called Father because according to him
"I'm an emergency bishop on certain days and an emergency priest most other days."
He told me Vladimir Putin was secretly baptized Eastern Orthodox by his mother,which is true.
I distrust Putin which he did too.His point was to pray for his Soul,not his connection to Chavad Lubavitch,which he acknowledged.
It's not unusual for a traditional nun or priest to give their life for someone's religious vocation.
I didn't agree with him on everything but he truly chilled out the last 3 years of his Life.
He died alone in pain and suffering for almost 3 months as reparation for his Sin's.
I hope I have the same amount of courage when the Lord decides its my time.
-ANDREW
Andrew,
DeleteThe things Bp. Dymek told me are different than what he told you. Anyways, he has been judged now along with Bp. Slupski and I hope God had mercy on them because they had some serious problems theologically, pastorally and in general.
It's not normal to think it's a good idea to be asked to be a priest from a bishop in the confessional, especially when either person hardly knows each other. It's called stupid and a terrible use of judgement especially from Bp. Slupski's end. Bp. Dymek had a family and became not only a priest but a bishop. If he had any kind of vocation he should have just stayed lay person and done penance. That should tell you enough right there.
My point with regards to Pope St. Pius X and Pius XII is you, your chapel, and Bp. Dymek differ as to what year Pius XII lost his office. He didn't lose his office for reforming the liturgy. If he lost his office then Pope St. Pius X along with 2 or 3 other popes in history after the Council of Trent would have also lost their office since they at one point changed the liturgy like Pope Pius XII. You're applying the Council of Trent in such a way that a pope cannot change the liturgy at all and that's not what it meant.
I don't mean to pick at you. I think you are nice man in writing and very respectful but I think we should just agree that we are not going to agree about Pope Pius XII.
Lee
Thank you and I too hope both Bishop Slupski & Dymek are in Heaven.
DeleteHe had changed his mind on issues like the rest of us after being confronted with the truth.
I miss Fr.Dymek because he kept me on the straight and narrow plus opened my eyes to personal faults and failings.
We disagreed on MANY occasions and I didn't attend Holy Mass a few Sundays out of Pride.
He once told me,
"At the end,our Blessed Lord will take a flashlight and look around your house.
If you didn't obey and live as you are commanded,you will burn in Hell, literally.
Don't ever allow a Priest or Bishop to keep you from Holy Mass and the Sacraments.
If you don't like him,don't speak to him,including me.
Your Soul is at stake and that's what matters."
I enjoyed interacting with as you as well.
You're respectful and intelligent.
-ANDREW
Lee, I don't get this nitpicking about the liturgy among traditionalists either. Do these "extremists" really believe that if Vatican II never had taken place we would still celebrate the Tridentine Mass like in the 1950s? It's preposterous to think such a thing. Popes throughout the centuries always added or removed things from the missal for practical or pastoral reasons. Personally I don't mind the 1962 nor the 1965 missal. I do reject the Novus Ordo though, because it's not Catholic and never will be Catholic.
DeleteAnonymous 5:41 AM
DeleteThank you for your reply,
For me it's about consistency. Even though Andrew and I disagree about Pope Pius XII, I will say that he at least is more consistent with his line of thinking compared to others. What I mean is Andrew believes Pope Pius XII lost his office in 1951 and by believing this he at least is showing obedience to Pius XII up until the time he thinks he lost his office. Many others from Bishops Dolan, Sanborn, Ramolla, Neville, Geert Stuyver (from Italy) Kelly (and all SSPV bishops), and a few more maintain their belief that Pope Pius XII was truly the last pope until he died (1958) but nevertheless refuse to use the missal with his reforms including the additional added feast day of St. Joseph's (May 1st). My problem is why do they all (as far as I know) obey the Pius XII reform of the three hour fast before communion and the allowance of evening Masses (part of the reforms in the 50's) but do not agree with the others? For them to go against the one they believe was the last pope is disobedience and hypocrisy because they constantly harp on the SSPX for not obeying Francis when they are just as guilty. Don't get me wrong I don't support the SSPX because I don't believe they are Catholics nor do I think that because Andrew has a more consistent line of thinking that I think it's tolerable as to what he holds. I really like a lot of the bishops I named above and their priests and I'm not trying to discourage others from going to them especially when there is not many options. I just wish they were like the CMRI and a few other independent sedevacantist priests (possibly others) who are the only ones that use the Pius XII reforms.
While the 1962 and 1965 missals are similar to the reforms of Pius XII the problem is those were promulgated by John XXIII. If he were a true pope the missals could be used and the changes wouldn't matter but because most sedevacantist Catholics agree (including myself) that he was the first Anti-pope or (false pope) that those missals are not only a problem but cannot be used.
Lee
But this leaves you with all these trained priests are wrong and Lee is right. I try not to pontificate on the issue. Clergy and especially lay-people shouldn't either. Like the una cum apostate issue I think we can go with our conscience on these issues.
DeleteI also think any discussion on the issue is more profitable when it is not made personal e.g. "too bad Andrew is like this and John Gregory is like that, and poor Lee how did he get that way".
Keeping to the issue in a fully objective and dispassionate way is far more helpful.
Hopefully you do not see me say I know this side is right and that side is wrong on controversial issues where even the SV clergy are split.
I can't bring myself to say half the SV clergy are wrong. They would rightly say, "Who cares?"
No one has any right getting "dogmatic" regarding any one's opinions.
DeleteUnknown 6:10 AM
DeleteThe CMRI and a few others use the Pius XII missal so why not the rest of them? I continually hear how trads want the sedevacantist bishops and priests to get along or get together and elect a pope etc. How will that happen when they all can't get past being UNA CUM (ONE WITH) obeying Pius XII? It's ridiculous.
Anonymous 10:34 AM
I don't know if you are talking to me but I'm not making my own opinions dogmatic. My point is either do it right (not according to me but according to the Church) or don't do it at all. The Holy Office said, "Those who follow the Roman Rite are bound to observe in the future the restored Order of Holy Week... Those who follow other Latin rites are bound to observe only the time set in the new Order of Liturgical functions 2. The new Order must be observed on March 25th 1956, the Second Passion Sunday or Palm Sunday." Notice how it says bound in the future and must be observed on March 25th 1956. That means until it gets changed by another a future pope that a clergymen is to do it under pain of sin. I honestly don't know what else to say. If you all want to go to the bishops and their priests I listed in an above comment, who don't obey Pius XII, then go ahead.
Lee
Easy for you to beef about trads disagreeing, buddy! You don't have thirty years worth of good Catholics you know personally being refused sacraments because of two priests motivated by revenge and ambition. And an off-at-a-tear "una cum" riff from you! Sounds like King Charles' head!
ReplyDeleteI'd like to thank Fr. Cekada for his article which has put all these events into perspective. My opinion is that Fr. Cekada's attitude and sentiments towards the SSPV is fair, reasonable and could easily be described as "restrained." Keep up the good work, Father Cekada!
DeleteFr. Cekada,
DeleteGlad to see you read my blog! It’s interesting that you think you know the motives of Bp. Kelly and Fr. Jenkins (Whom I know personally). I know Fr Jenkins to be a good priest, wrong on the Thuc issue, but I believe him to be sincere. You even know the details of his health.
I try and follow the evidence where it leads. I defended you and Bp. Dolan against the attacks of “Pistrina Liturgica” and “Lay Pulpit” when they called into question the validity of Bp. Dolan’s Consecration on unsubstantiated and faulty grounds. They clearly just had an axe to grind against both of you.
I think you are an intelligent cleric who has contributed much to the Sedevacantist cause. Nevertheless, I’m sad to say that you’re every bit as prideful as Bp. Kelly. He will not admit he was wrong on Thuc.
If you’re really concerned about those good Catholics being denied Sacraments, do you really think they will change their minds based on your calling them “cult leaders” and the boorish remarks? Wouldn’t a dispassionate discussion of the issue do better? You will just anger them into digging in their heels, much like you do.
One SSPV priest and I were speaking. I told him I disagreed on Thuc. I asked if that “disqualified me” from Communion. His response was he wouldn’t become the “Mass police” and would give Communion to me even if I went as long as I didn’t “broadcast it.” He’s a young priest, too. When he reads your article calling his Society a “cult,” I wonder if he will still be so amenable.
You must face your own cooties. You advertise a “BUGnini free” Holy Week which implicitly denies the papacy of Pope Pius XII. After all, if (for example) genuflecting for the Jews on Good Friday was wrong, it was ALWAYS WRONG and it’s ridiculous to suggest it “became wrong” over time. However, if it was always wrong, it was wrong when promulgated in 1955. But the Church cannot give that which is evil, so Pius could not have been pope.
Your the one who has written extensively on Una Cum. I’m not obsessed nor is it irrelevant. You will refuse Communion to Good Catholics who attend SSPX. Not only that, you tell people they can’t receive Holy Viaticum which is “tainted” by the Una Cum cootie. What if someone in danger of death is so put off they don’t call the only priest available (SSPX for some) and die without the Last Rites? Have you thought about that?
Your attack was uncalled for, counterproductive, and hypocritical.
I don’t hate you Father, even if the feeling isn’t mutual. I try to practice what I preach. I think you have done much good, and can do greater things.
In order for that to happen worry less about King Charles Head, and concentrate on the Sacred Heart Of Jesus Christ. Let’s advance Christ’s Kingship, and have more unity against the One World V2 sect.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
@anon11:29
DeleteSee my response to Fr. Cekada
—-Introibo
Att. Blogger @ 12:33 pm.
DeletePass. I'm not interested in your response.
Regards,
Fr. Cekada supporter.
@anon1:09
DeleteWould it be uncharitable to suggest his supporters shouldn’t check their brains at the door of SGG?
—-Introibo
Blogger @ 1:27 pm
DeleteWho cares whether it's uncharitable? To care one would first have to take you seriously.
@anon1:43
DeleteObviously you do take me seriously or you wouldn’t be reading and commenting here in the first place! Follow the SGG “pope.”
—-Introibo
Anonymous blogger @ 1:52 pm.
DeleteThere you go again flattering yourself. I commented in support of Fr. Cekada. If you'd shut your mouth (for once) tnere would've been no more comments. Please believe me when I tell you that I never read your articles. You are irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I was here to read Fr. Cekada's comment which was the most useful thing ever posted here. Listen, I don't follow the "SGG pope" - whatever that means, ???, but it'd be preferable any day to following some (obviously) substandard lawyer who worships poor Fr. DePauw (R.I.P.); a priest who,despite all your glorification, of him, was still a sedeplenist in 1999. No small wonder you're a liberal sedevacantist who espouses that it's perfectly ok to attend UNA CUM masses. I hope you're not too riled up now, Monsieur Hothead?
@anon2:16
DeleteThou protesteth too much! Quote: “Please believe me when I tell you that I never read your articles.”
Yet you know:
1. I’m a lawyer (not mentioned in this post)
2. I “worship” Fr DePauw (I only mentioned him in passing in the comments of this post)
If you were on a witness stand you’d be guilty of perjury! Thanks for reading my blog! Hey, even Fr Cekada reads it!!
—-Introibo
To Anon 2:16
Delete“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,” (1Peter 3:15)
"In essentials, unity. In non essentials, disunity. Above all things, Charity" - St Augustine"
"Loving one another with the charity of brotherhood, with honour preventing one another." Romans, 12:10
"If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." 1: Corinthians 13:1
Please don´t respond in such manner. You are not forced to respond the moderation of the editor. You can defend Fr. Cekada better than by calling other people "liberal" and "Fr DePaw worshippers". Please remember that what matters is following Jesus Christ and exterminating the Vatican Second cult.
Besides, i follow the Francis Watch Podcast, Bp. Sanborn´s blog "In Veritate" and Fr. Cekada in YouTube.
For the Greater Glory of God
Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe.
Fr.Cekada,
DeleteI respect you and THANK YOU for all of the thankless hard work you and all other valid Priests and Bishops have done since the 1970's.
Please consider praying for unity amongst all traditional Catholics including traditional old Catholics with good will and a desire to leave 1870 behind and join us.
God bless,
-Andrew
Virtus in medio stat!!
DeleteInteresting article. Since becoming a sedevacantist I've certainly taken a hard line stance on distancing myself from anything novus ordo/una cum related. However you raise some interesting points on this matter regarding the SSPX. I'll certainly have to ponder over it some more.
ReplyDeleteThe big picture though is the traditional Catholic faith, and wasting our energy on each other rather than the new religion and evil does seem counter-productive any way you slice it. I suppose we need to swallow the pain of a somewhat fragmented flock until God deems it right to restore His papacy and Church.
Ora pro nobis Sancta Dei Genetrix
Vivat Christus Rex!
@neyoriquans,
DeleteWell said, my friend!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
I think you're overreacting, my friend. Una cum is objectively wrong. They profess spiritual union with heretics, yet do not submit to that heretic's jurisdiction. This is a canonical contradiction according to their own position.
ReplyDeleteI thought Fr. C was a little catty in his article, but I don't think anything he said was incorrect. The SSPV (or now the even more secretive CSPV) are being obstinate over this one niche issue, one that is not grounded in theology. I've heard this confirmed from one of the "Nine" ex-SSPX priests, one who is not necessarily a firm partisan for one or the other side. He thought the issue was driven by drama. I agree, although I think SSPV is doing more damage than harm at this point.
@anon1:32
DeleteUna Cum has not been pronounced objectively wrong by the Magisterium. What Mr. Lane has demonstrated is that the issue is unclear at best, and theologian Stepanich states bluntly that the pre-V2 Theologians and canonists never envisioned what Fr Cekada proposes. Such too, was the opinion of Fr DePauw an approved pre-V2 canonist.
Do I think the SSPV is wrong on Thuc? Yes. Do I think Cekada is wrong in proposing a “BUGnini free” Holy Week that implicitly calls the papacy of Pope Pius XII into question? How about no Holy Viaticum from SSPX in danger of death because It was “tainted by the Una Cum Cootie?”
Is THAT doing more harm than good?
—-Introibo
Vatican 2 hasn't been condemned by the Magisterium. And if pre-V2 theologians had foreseen this situation, then we wouldn't be in this situation.
DeleteWe don't have to wait for every issue to be resolved by the Magisterium, else we couldn't take the sedevacantist position. We can take Catholic theological principles and apply them to situations as they arise. The mind of the church (Ex Cum Apostolatus, Bellarmine) is that non-Catholics cannot hold office to begin with. So the practice of Una Cum is affirming a contradiction.
I also personally think you take the Holy Week issue too seriously. There is precedent in Church history to curtail liturgy for much less serious reasons than modernist infiltration. The Mozarabic Rite was largely suppressed for a faulty TRANSLATION. The Quinones Breviary was completely suppressed after being approved by a pope. Neither of them were inherently bad.
There is also legal precedent for priests and bishops to appeal papal decisions. Catholics have a right to keep their ancient liturgical customs. And since Holy Week dates back to.... the original Holy Week, its continuation would have been agitated for in normal times. But since Pius 12 died, Bugnini admitted that his neutral changes were a "foot in the door" to get people used to future changes. This doesn't cast doubt on P12, only reveals the evil machinations of the modernists.
But I digress. I'm not saying Father Cekada is perfect. (I think the Viaticum decisions is a bit unsavory -- perhaps an emergency [death] could justify its use?) There was obviously a lot of baggage he let loose in that post. Someone should have edited out the personal jabs for him before he pressed "submit." But I think people should know that the SSPV is driven more by personality than by theology.
"Vatican 2 hasn't been condemned by the Magisterium." - Here I was thinking that it taught things already pre-condemned?
DeleteAnonymousJuly 8, 2019 at 2:08 PM:
ReplyDeletea. We can take some things and apply principles but not all things and then make absolute laws about it. Only the magisterium can do such things.
b. What you call "affirming a contradiction" is not always. There are nuances/distinctions and conditions that are to be considered especially since theologians imply that it's not a contradiction.
c. Your Church precedent of curtailing was the Church making the decision to do so, not the individual priests. The Church has the prerogative, not individual priests.
d. An appeal to the pope means to wait until the pope okays it. Not to do it beforehand.
e. The pre55 Holy Week liturgy doesn't date back to Holy Week but the late Middle Ages. Read the documents before making the comments. The pre55 Holy Week Missal is actually quite novel all things considered. Applying epieikeia is not justified at all especially since it shouldn't be used except in necessity.
f. I think the point of Introibo's article is for Cekada to stop acting like the pope.
@Saddlery Tack,
DeleteYou understand Church teaching, and our present situation, extremely well!
Thank you for commenting!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
I'm more than willing to research Holy Week. But, to my knowledge, the general practice dates back to at least the third century, to the churches of Alexandria and Jerusalem. If Introibo disregards John 23rds pontificate for the reason he does (which I totally agree with), then there's little justification for turning around and berating others for rejecting the liturgical reforms of masonic Bugnini.
DeleteI find your a) point confusing. A contradiction is a contradiction. The SSPX claims the NO pontiff is the pope, and offers their Mass in union with him, but they are legally/canonically NOT in union with him. They have no title to the sacrament because they are literally not under his jurisdiction. Even the FSSP is more consistent than the SSPX, and the former has questionable orders! We can split hairs all day on how "pre-V2 theologians aren't certain," but that only underscores the extent to which the Great Apostasy has shaken the very foundations of the church.
Now, should Father Cekada bar s/o from communion who goes to SSPX? Perhaps not, and I'm inclined to agree with Introibo that maybe that action is unwarranted. But again, pastors are hyper-aware that any slip-up they make will be magnified by the internet. If he gave communion to an SSPX person, then he would be seen as approving of the entire R&R principles. Which again, is non-sensical.
I think the point of the article is excessive tone policing. The SSPV are extremely uncharitable, they excommunicate others without even going through the motions of citing canon law. Father Cekada's experience with the characters of the people he has dealt with is not unfounded. They have not been the most forthcoming with their priestly brothers over the decades. At least Father Cekada will make an argument for his line of thinking, and be consistent with it. At least everyone gave Fr. Kelly a chance, until they realized he would never budge for personal reasons.
Moreover, SSPV folks can and sometimes do go to St. Gertrude's, they go to the SSPX, they even go to Indult Latin Masses. Yet no "Thuc-associated" layman is allowed at their place. So all in all, I don't think the correction was unwarranted. But I will repeat that it was a bit too personal and polemical in tone.
Gregory Hesse was a church historian and gave references to the pre-51 Holy Week going back to 2nd and 3rd century.
DeleteEvidence suggests the pre-51 Good Friday being offered by St.Timothy and other STUDENTS of the Apostles.
-Andrew
@anon9:48
DeleteThank you for the charitable and thoughtful reply.
Two points I would like to make. The New Rite Of Holy Week (1955), was NOT BUGnini’s reform. That’s the reason both Fr Cekada And SSPV reject it. Bugnini was a Freemason and had much to do with it. However, I don’t care if it was Satan himself, because it was promulgated by the pope! The Church is infallible in Her Universal disciplinary laws such as those regarding the Liturgy. The Holy Ghost would prevent anything from being promulgated that wasn’t of the highest degree of holiness and totally Catholic. If the New Rite was evil, it couldn’t come from the Church. Therefore, one would have to declare Pope Pius XII a Private heretic who lost his authority prior. Fr Cekada admits that the New Rite was not heretical or evil (thereby saving the pontificate of Pope Pius XII), but it “became noxious” over time. The argument is illogical. If (for example) genuflecting for the Jews was wrong, it was always wrong! It’s absurd to say genuflecting for the Jews was Holy in 1956, but it became evil in 1990, or 2000, or some other randomly chosen time. I have never heard this objection answered. Rejecting the 1955 Holy Week is unsupported theologically.
Second, I agree with you that Fr Cekada’s tone was personal against the SSPV. In doing so, he is not going to make them reconsider. They will only get angry and less receptive to anything against the made up rule.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
To Andrew: Hesse got his education from the Novus Ordo authorities which is not trustworthy. He had all kinds of weird ideas. He said Vat2 was not a Catholic council while professing Paul VI and JP2 as true popes. The guy was nutty.
DeleteAs for Bp Dymek, he relayed to me that he thought Pius XII lost his pontificate because he went against Quo Primum. Problem is, Quo Primum is not binding on popes and the liturgy has changed at least 5 times since 1570. Even Pope St. Pius V changed the liturgy after his own declared Quo Primum. When Dymek was given the info that he was completely wrong, he never retracted. I don't call that courageous.
Your argument that Pius XII lost his pontificate actually contradicts the First Vatican Council's decree on the supreme authority of the pope.
I would presume that you're now attending mass under Bp Ramolla and follow the same rejection of the 55 missal. It's unfortunate that so many priests and bishops pick and choose what liturgy they'll follow because of their private opinion.
When you talk about change. Do you mean adding or taking away feast days or commemorations, changing the rank of a feast day? Or the common prayers of the Mass itself? Can you be specific? I'm trying to learn. Regardless of the answer I'm sure Pius XII was valid until he died.
DeleteAs a professional ignoramus I wonder why the mass codified by Pius V in perpetuity could not just be left alone?
Can we at least admit that it may have been imprudent or not the best thing to mess with it? Popes can be imprudent can't they?
Again playing devil's advocate. I'm not qualified to speak on the issue.
To John Gregory: a. St. Pius added the feast day Our Lady of Victory. Clement VIII changed the missal, Urban III changed the hymns, Leo XIII added the St. Michael Prayer with a general revision, and St. Pius X revised the chant, added a radical new psalter, added and removed Feast Days, and along with abolishing the Psalter of St. Pius V, the antiphonary of the traditional Roman Office was also almost completely overhauled and many antiphons were abolished.
DeleteAnd lastly, you should read why Pius XII made his changes here: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11136
b. Pius XII was valid until he died and it's erroneous to claim that a pope can lose his office by changing the liturgy.
c.You may have the opinion that this or that change is not as good as what it was but you may not have the opinion that there's something wrong with the change. Why did St. Pius V make changes? How about leaving the liturgy alone from the time of the Apostles? Pope St. Gregory the Great added to the Canon and Catholics wanted to kill him for it but now we love his changes. Popes have the prerogative and we just have our mere opinion which means nothing. Who has the authority to say the changes were imprudent?
We are not in disagreement. Obviously we couldn't get the liturgy organized throughout the Catholic world until the end of the persecutions in the 4th century. By the time of Gregory the Great things were relatively unified. Between that time and the time of Pius V things pertaining to the liturgy had scattered somewhat in different regions and Pius V reigned it all back in and unified (codified the Mass) it against the protestant onslaught against the Mass and all things Catholic.
DeleteIs this relatively correct?
Not as good does not equal wrong I grant. A valid pope would not do anything "wrong" against the liturgy. Perhaps imprudent. Perhaps as you say less good. I'm glad that point is acknowledged. Often this point is not granted because people become overly defensive rightly defending the valid popes but wrongly leaving the impression that all popes always do the best and most advisable things at all times.
The changes, apart from a radical new psalter, you mention above are natural changes. I would be interested to gain a further understanding of why that change was made.
By the end of the pontificate of Pius XII the Church was up to its ears with modernists, people were made cardinals and put in very high places, even those that were suspect. Perhaps I can pull Father Stepanich's old letters and quote his concerns about the end of Pius XII reign. But the overall gist of what he wrote on the issue stuck with me and I was aware of some problems before that.
We know they killed Sister Lucy and I believe they drugged and ultimately killed him so he would not reveal the secret in 1960. I believe his doctor said he thought he would live well beyond that because he was very healthy in the early 50's.
So much went on that we do not know about. I know he was heroic with the Jews and risked so very much saving them. And as I said I don't doubt his papacy by any stretch and therefore know it was impossible for him to approve anything that would be a danger to the faith. I hope you understand that. He is a pope that I admire. I would love to get the full story on him. The people around him have hid many good things about him.
I've recently read about the changes of both Popes Clements.
DeleteThese "changes" were mere mere modifications not outright new on the spot made man invented Rites like Pius XII circa 51-58.
Adding a feast commemorating the defeat of Ottoman Turks is not a modernists Novus Ordo
"Enrichment."
The new Divine Office doesn't affect the faithful as the Holy Rosary is our Divine Office.
Adding the Leonine Prayers for protection of Holy Mother Church is not a mutilation or radical departure from tradition.
Pius XII also ELIMINATED the IMMEMORIAL AFTER MIDNIGHT HOLY COMMUNION FAST circa 1953 & 1957.
Even the Eastern Orthodox have kept the after midnight Holy Communion fast.
Gregory Hesse being an invalid Novus Ordo
"Priest" has nothing to do with his accurate facts pertaining to Church History.
Pius XII also promoted Bishop Montini (Paul VI) to the Archbishop of Milan.
Bishop Ratti was Archbishop of Milan before being elected and coronated as Pius XI.
You don't promote modernists to such high positions if you are supposedly "demoting him."
I'll let it go and agree to disagree as I'm not qualified to go into deeper detail.
Anything after March 1951 is simply the first steps to 1964-1975.
Have a blessed day.
-Andrew
To John Gregory: The world was up to eyeballs in St. Pius X's day which is why he went after them so hard. I personally like the changes of Pius XII's Holy Week. They correspond to the gospel readings much better. My opinion though which means nothing.
DeleteTo Andrew: The point was that Bp Dymek said NO CHANGES could be made because of Quo Primum. Glad to see that you acknowledge his error and changes did occur over the last 500 years.
DeleteSome of the changes of Pope Pius XII were not new. They were actually old since the pre55 missal came from the late middle ages, which his relatively new.
The 1911 changes of Pope St. Pius X were radical! The psalms in St. Pius X's breviary was entirely new. It only partially took into account the ancient tradition of the Church, for example, abandoning the number of 12 psalms at Matins, a number consecrated by a tradition going back to the Desert Fathers and expressly codified in the Rule of St. Benedict.
St. Pius X 1911 changes suppressed the immemorial and universal held usage of reciting ps 148, 149, and 150 at the end of Lauds daily. He eliminated 75 antiphons and changed the other 16.
It was completely unheard of when Pope St. Gregory the Great added to the Canon. But he did it.
Pius XII ELIMINATED the MIDNIGHT HOLY because the Mass was moved to the evening and fasting from midnight to the next evening is too difficult for most.
The Eastern Orthodox also kept administration of baptism/communion/confirmation to infants which Rome eliminated after a 1000 years of Christianity. Where’s your outrage? Want to join the heretical Eastern Orthodox now because they kept a long held tradition of men?
Gregory Hesse did not have facts precisely because of his novus ordo education.
Yes Pius XII promoted Montini and Jesus promoted Judas knowing full well that Judas was a traitor. So what’s your point? Stop falsely judging Pius XII.
You could also say that everything after 1911 was the first steps to 1964-1975. So why don’t you reject St. Pius X radical changes of 1911?
Pius XII was not the problem and neither are his changes. Your argument is heretical and condemns the Catholic Church, not just Pope Pius XII.
People can you pray for me? I am having a problem, and if you pray for me it will be solved.
ReplyDeleteFor Greater Glory of God,
Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe
Poni,
DeleteI’ll be praying for you and I ask all my readers to please do the same!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Yes Poni I'll pray for you.
Delete-A
Poni,
DeleteSending prayers for you.
Thank you!
DeleteI re-published an translated the article "The Schizophrenic Church of the R&R"
You can find it here: https://quisutdeusinenglish.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-schizofrenic-church-of-recognize.html = English
https://guerracontraelmundo.blogspot.com/2019/06/la-iglesia-esquizofrenica-de-los.html = Spanish
For Greater Glory of God,
Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe
Thank you Poni!
Delete—-Introibo
Sorry, but I just can't get how una cum mass can be in any way acceptable. I'm a home aloner and would rather make a Spiritual Communion than receive Viaticum from SSPX, or any heretical Priest - just like St. Hermenegild.
ReplyDeleteThe conciliar popes are heretics deposed by God for the sin of heresy against Divine Law. To recognize them as Catholic clergy; to pray with them to offer such heretic to God the Father in union with the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of His Beloved Son is an infinitely horrendous thing. The SSPX are aiders and abettors of heretics. they seek union with heretics and their false religion. They will suffer the same fate as heretics.
Liturgy resorts under discipline. The Pope as Supreme Legislator may alter Liturgy at will. Pope Pius XII was perfectly entitled to make the changes he made. None were evil, or heretical. The fact that he was duped (conned) by modernists who used the changes to further their own ends is irrelevant to their authenticity.
For me the Una Cum is like youngsters going out at night to some bad friends house without their parents knowing and saying to themselves "Well mom and dad didn't say we couldn't go to their house" even though if they did know the parents would not approve.
DeleteSt. Hermenegild is an excellent example: On his feast day (April 13th) it says in my St. Joseph Missal that "he was put to death for refusing to receive Communion with an Arian bishop."
Lee
Dr. Lamb,
DeleteGood to hear from you! The Una Cum according to Theologian Stepanich does not mean what Fr Cekada thinks it means. He was addressing Fr Cekada without making it personal. Of course, if you feel you shouldn’t attend, don’t! I object to enforcing it as dogma by clerics. Consider that you can receive the Last Rites from ANY validity ordained priest. The Church allows you to receive Last Rites from EO Schismatics and excommunicated priests. How is it that SSPX is an exception?
God Bless Dr!
—-Introibo
Lee,
DeleteA distinction is in order. What if someone has no other option? They could, like St. Hermenegild, refuse to receive the Sacraments. On the other hand, they could imitate another great saint and martyr, St Thomas More, Who received Holy Communion from an Anglican heretic for the graces since they were not yet legally declared heretics.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
I see what you mean. I did not know that about St. Thomas Moore. Thank you for sharing. Their is the distinction of being in danger of death like these saints. My problem is allowance for going to the UNA CUM on a regular basis knowing what they believe. If I for example went to such a Mass my mind would be so distracted that I would need to go to confession as my anger would fester not being able to tolerate the obstinate errors of not just with UNA CUM but the idea of being in the public presence of people who believe in the Novus Ordo religion as the Catholic religion when its not even close. People would think oh he accepts us as Catholic (when I don't) while they go about their life ignorantly bliss.
DeleteLee
Lee
Lee,
DeleteYour point is well taken. As I’ve always maintained, if your conscience tells you to stay away, you should stay away!
—-Introibo
Not ALL people who go to an Una Cum Mass accept V2 or Francis. From my own experience attending an Indult with a 90 yr old pre-Vatican II Priest the majority did NOT accept the Novus Ordo or V2 or Francis. The majority of people who attended the Una Cum had nowhere else to receive Sacraments in the area. Their very presence at the Una Cum was in itself a rejection of the Novus Ordo, or they would have been attending the Novus Ordo instead. People are at differing points in their search for and in Tradition. There is an SSPV Church outside the City and when people tried to go there instead of the Una Cum Indult with the 90 yr old Priest, they were told by the SSPV that they could not receive Holy Communion because they were attending the Indult with the 90 yr old Priest. (“By their fruits you will know them”).
DeleteIntroibo, What I don’t understand is if Francis is not Pope, why calling him one in the Una Cum is such a big deal?? Calling Francis Pope is NOT going to make him Pope now or ever unless he repents of his own free will.
Thank you Introibo. I appreciate your gracious responses and I hope you're not annoyed with me as well as everybody else who might be reading.
DeleteIn the Missal it's not just UNA CUM (one with) our pope... (his name) but "et Antistite nostro" and our Bishop (his name). If an SSPX priest or one of their bishops say Mass would the priest or bishop say UNA CUM Francis and our bishop Bernard Fellay, Tissier, Galarreta? How could they say one of their bishops names in the canon, if their bishops do not have a diocese or a territory assigned them by their pope Francis? What if they said one of the Novus Ordo bishops names like Dolan from New York if that is their diocese in union with Francis? What would be the point of their (SSPX) bishops to exist?
Lee
Lee,
DeleteIntelligent comments are never a bother but most appreciated! I knew many SSPX priests in the 1980s, including Fr Williamson three years before his consecration. At that time, they added no name of the Bishop, just like pre-V2 when the local Ordinary died and before someone new took canonical possession of the Diocese. They did not use the name of Lefebvre or the newly consecrated bishops since none possessed Ordinary jurisdiction. That was the standard practice. Do they still do that? I honestly don’t know.
—-Introibo
@Joann,
DeleteWhat you say is very true. The argument is that by adding Bergoglio’s name you recognize him as pope and are “in union “ with him. This is not the case as theologian Stepanich explains!
—-Introibo
Introibo, What does theologian Stepanich explain? I must have missed the explanation.
DeleteI am not R&R by any means, but these are extraordinary times and if the only Sacraments available to me is at an Una Cum with a valid Priest, you better believe I am attending. I can't help what other people do or believe that attend. I can only answer for myself.
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteThe good Theologian explains that when the priest mentions the name of the pope in the Canon he is expressing unity with a True Pope. The pre-V2 theologians WERE NOT DISCUSSING A USURPER. There’s nothing to suggest that putting the name of Bergoglio in the Canon makes you in Union with the V2 sect. He is a phony so the non Una Cum of a Sedevacantist is always preferred. That doesn’t mean Una Cum is evil or heretical or forbidden.
—-Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThanks much for the explanation! In my opinion it is basically common sense.
Introibo,
DeleteSo if the SSPX didn't use their own names as bishops in the canon as part of being in union with (at that time) JPII or possibly use a newly consecrated bishops name from the diocese, then why mention JPII's at all? Even though it wouldn't be right to mention any of their bishops names in the canon since none posses jurisdiction (as they acknowledged) it would still make more since to do that rather than mention a man that they not only despise but don't follow "the pope."
Lee
Lee,
DeleteThe history behind it is interesting. Before Abp Lefebvre starting “talks” with Wojtyla (circa 1980), he didn’t care if the priests used JP2 name or not. He even entertained Sedevacantism. Once Wojtyla wined and dined him, he changed his tune. Hoping for some kind of personal prelature, he instructed all his priests to use Wojtyla’s name in the Canon to show “good faith.” Nine priests from the New York/ Connecticut area refused. They even got the moniker The Northeast Nine. They wanted to continue to use the 1954 Missal (not 1962 as Lefebvre and Wojtyla wanted), and did not want JP2 in the Canon. They also wanted a Jesuit priest who joined them (Fr Philip Stark) conditionality ordained since he was ordained in the invalid new Rite in 1970. Stark refused and Lefebvre wouldn’t make him as a condition to stay in the SSPX.
Tensions built, and in April of 1983, the Nine formed the SSPV. On May 13, 1984 Abp Lefebvre ordained Fr Thomas Morasca to the priesthood and the very next day he left to join the SSPV. The Archbishop was outraged! That’s when he began the purging of Sedevacantists and insisting on the name of the “pope” in the Canon.
Hope it makes a crazy kind of sense now!
—-Introibo
Those are some very interesting details. Thank you for the info.
DeleteLee
I have read Bp.Lefevbre ordained 4 priests for the USA in 1984 and 3 of the 4 priests left the SSPX that day or day after.
DeleteDon't know if it's true but I can see why Bp.Lefevbre would be irritable.
With that said,this event set a terrible precedent.
Bp.Lefevbre made it clear the Novus Ordo took precedence over tradition.
If you wanted to be a validily ordained priest,you must OBEY JP2 & the Novus Ordo.
The Thuc line was relatively unknown in 1984 plus the 2 American Thuc Bishops were claiming jurisdiction.
An utter nightmare for everyone involved and it's more confusing 25 yrs later.
Kyrie Elesion
-Andrew
Andrew,
DeleteThe confusion of the Great Apostasy.
—-Introibo
I went to SSPV Masses for a time in Baltimore. We set up an appointment to have my daughter, Anastasia, to be baptized on December 25th 2009 after the second Mass of Christmas with a commemoration of Saint Anastasia. We wanted our child to be baptized by a SV priest. And I held Father Jenkins in high regard despite being aware of his anti-Thuc stance.
ReplyDeleteSome time before the baptism was to occur things went silent. Father Jenkins and the lay couple in charge no longer responded to me. I started to worry and I finally got a hold of them I believe within a couple of days before the baptism and was told that Father Jenkins would not baptize my baby because I write for the Four Marks and for Daily Catholic and they are associated with the Thuc-line bishops.
I was not overly surprised but it deeply scandalized my wife. And it hurts her 'til this day. I'm glad I called. Otherwise I would have made what in good weather is the 2-hour each way trip in the snow and have been incredibly disappointed.
The following is all from a weak and dying memory but I have the overall gist of this right if everything my friend told me while it was happening is correct. A close friend, at the time, who converted from mormonism also started to go. And enthusiastically taped their sermons and gave them to others hoping to convert them. But when this was found out he was told, by Father Jenkins I believe, to stop doing this. They put off baptizing him for a long time even though he was very learned in the faith. He ended up scandalized because they would not baptize him and they wanted people to pay for the truth rather than it be given away for free by a layperson using his own resources; not sure what ultimately happened to him [not even sure if he ever got baptized because he got mad at me]. Perhaps he was angry at me through misplaced anger because it was my fault he associated with the SSPV, I did not talk down the SSPV that much though he was aware of my thoughts on their anti-Thuc line stance. Even now I recommend those in the area go to their Mass. But this incredible petty nonsense is a sad commentary among those who are supposed to be wide-awake Catholics in a state of sanctifying grace. Lay-people let alone clergy, for heaven’s sake, apparently being more concerned about money and unsettled controversies than THE SALVATION OF SOULS!
I recommend that of course they support the ones who provide them the Sacraments minimally but give the main part of their alms to a solid independent SV priest with qualities, knowledge and conclusions on issues (e.g. whether organs can be harvested from the brain-“dead”) like those of a Father Ahearn or Novus Ordo Watch, or failing that, the CMRI who may not have all the issues right are of good will and from where I sit consider souls to be the highest priority. Those, IMO, who use the sacraments like a weapon which results in “divisions” within the Church and causes great scandal and some to lose the faith entirely should not be supported apart from a minimal degree if you attend Mass there.
A novus-ordo person, IMO, on their-death bed who requests the Last Rites from a valid priest should not be denied. A priest should not risk having that on his soul. He should leave whether the person was of good will or not and even if they were Catholic or not up to God and let Him settle the accounts. Good priests should extend the most loving hands of Jesus over the soul of one who cries out “Lord save me. I perish!” giving him every opportunity to make a good end. Our time is not the same as when a Catholic left his Catholic Church and went to a Lutheran Church at a different location. Many elderly NO’s never left the Church at all, the Church left them. If they want to be careful and “make sure” they get valid sacraments I would not want to be the priest that prevented them from obtaining it simply because they are duped along with the other billion or so NO’s who think they are in the Catholic Church and who perhaps had their faith stolen through no fault of their own.
@Unknown,
DeleteYou make many good points. I’m very sorry you had that experience with Fr Jenkins. He was wrong. Much more careful consideration must be given about Last Rites for V2 sect members. It’s an issue worth exploring as the Church has definitive rules, and these are extraordinary times.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Can you please go into some detail about the consideration needed about Last Rites? On what basis would you refuse. I know for Bishop Sanborn they have to reject Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo before he administers it. I would like some clarity on this issue if any can be given.
Delete@Unknown
DeleteAccording to Theologian Kilker, the subject of Extreme Unction must 1. Be a member of the Faithful 2. He must have acquired the use of reason and 3. He must be in danger of death from sickness or old age. (See “Extreme Unction” CUA Press, [1927], pg. 123).
If you want to know what other conditions may be necessary for Holy Viaticum and Confession, please let me know and I’ll look it up.
—-Introibo
Thank you very much for the response. So no black and white on NO's who request the Last Rites from a valid priest when in danger of death? Some maintain if they ask for a traditional priest that expresses their desire to join the true Church. In response I said they could just be being ecumenical :o) You don't want to trivialize the sacraments or give to one who is clearly not Catholic. But these are different times. Things are not so clear. I would err on the side of safety in regards to the soul. I would rather give the Sacraments to one that perhaps I shouldn't have when the conclusion is not clear, than not give them to one I should have. If it the difference between heaven and hell I would not want to be blamed for not doing what I could have when in the vast gray area of today. That is my opinion. But I'm open to correction. Personally I don't think they are Catholic, but theologically I am not sure if they can be considered worthy or not under the circumstances.
DeleteSo yes I would like to know the other conditions, if it really isn't to much trouble, and your own opinion which I highly respect.
Unknown,
DeleteExtreme Unction must be given to those whose danger of death arises from internal causes, not external (such as a convict about to be executed). Holy Viaticum and Penance (as well as the Apostolic Benediction Blessing) May be given whether the cause is internal or external.
As to members of the Vatican II sect, in my opinion they should be treated as non-Catholics. The Church law regarding such is explained by Theologian King:
1. If the non-Catholic was baptized and expressly wishes to convert, the priest must give some basic instruction on each Sacrament. They must always be given in the order of Penance, Holy Viaticum, and Extreme Unction.
2. If the person is unconscious but called for the Last Rites, all three Sacraments may be given CONDITIONALLY if some sign of conversion was given.
In my opinion this applies to the V2 sect. As long as a sign of conversion was given (calling a Traditionalist could be in itself such a sign), the Last Rites May be given conditionally to one unconscious. Depending on what year they were baptized, I would repeat that conditionally first. For a conscious member of the sect, they must be willing to convert and be instructed as best as possible as time permits before death. They must reject V2 and Modernism as non-Catholic. If they recognize Bergoglio as pope, even after instruction, as long as they reject him and his errors, in my opinion they should not be denied the Last Rites any more than an SSPX member. The principles are taken from Theologian King, “The Administration Of the Sacraments to Dying Non-Catholics,” CUA Press, [1924], pgs. 110-114).
Although this is Church teaching in regards to declared non-Catholics pre-Vatican II, its practical application to members of the V2 sect is merely my opinion and I submit myself to the judgement of the Holy Father if and when such is restored.
Hope this helped!
—-Introibo
This helps greatly!!! Thank you very much!!!
DeleteWe can assume any number of things but we can never judge the inner workings of the soul. That all will change when we get a valid pope that decrees they are not Catholics and must be treated as such.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised to find out the regular parishioners I spoke with at SSPV did not even know the chapel was SV. The parishioners were very charitable which was different from other traditional chapels I attended. The sermons were generally solid. And sorry, I was glad they went with the pre-Bugnini Mass. I would never try to win a debate over the issue and certainly no one should have a problem with attending either the pre-55 or the pre-58 Mass (the one in effect at the death of the last pope). In my opinion the idea that they have cultish tendencies can be stated from an objective dispassionate position. No salvation outside of us. And sadly this mentality seems rather prevalent at other Mass centers. Properly trained clergy have much less of an excuse to not know basic sacramental theology than the rest of us. And if they are not ignorant or could learn the truth if they were so inclined what is the motive for insisting on such policies?
Bad things are happening everywhere in the movement. The Devil knows where the true Church is. Why did half the parishioners leave SGG (including those without children merely on principle) and settle for what was a make-shift chapel over a beautiful Church? Any accurate clarifications or responses are welcome in the comments. I guess lies and diatribes are as well. But the good willed who care for other souls would be inclined to honest and accurate responses. That is the response I would benefit from.
Regardless of the correct stance on the una-cum apostate issue [I have been on both sides of the issue and was 100% sure I was correct in both instances LOL] I must say that you are correct that priests should not bind a parishioner’s conscience over the issue to the point of denying them the soul-saving sacraments. The parishioners have a right to see both sides of the issue for themselves and come to their own conclusions in this time of confusion with the priests giving their OPINION on the issue when asked. They should never force it down anyone’s throats as some policy. That IS cultish. And gravely sinful.
What cannot be denied, IMO, and many SVs will deny it. Is that a Mass offered una-cum only all the orthodox in faith is more pleasing to God than one offered una-cum apostate heretic. Personally I left the Novus Ordo, among other reasons, to avoid having to plug my nose during a part of the liturgy. I talked with Father Stepanich on the issue and he said one who attends such a Mass [and he did say an SV could attend but was not obliged to attend such a Mass] must expressly withhold consent to the offensive phrase at such a Mass. Father Stepanich also strenuously questioned things that happened late in Pius XII reign. And he was, at the time, the only clergyman with a legitimate pre-V2 doctorate in theology. He wasn’t a plant, motivated by greed, and he wasn’t ignorant of what good priest should know at the death of Pius XII.
Thank you for your hard work my friend. You are one of the public few who makes me realize all is net yet lost. Keep up your great work!
Unknown,
DeleteOnce again, thank you for giving excellent comments and much about things we must consider!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
I think the common theme here is that no person, priest, or bishop can bind any of the faithful in this time of confusion since none of the valid priests have jurisdiction. Una or non una, you must decide for yourself, NO sacraments, you must decide for yourself, Thuc or no Thuc, its up to you. Stay home or not, again, its up to you. Clergy can provide sacraments and they can even make the rules for their mass centers. But they cannot bind us in disciplines since they all lack jurisdiction. Its a lousy predicament we are in, but we have to deal with it and stop thinking things are as they were. It is up to each individual to learn the Faith themselves. We have no authoritative teachers except the Popes of the past.
ReplyDeleteTom,
DeleteThe popes and theologians have given us a lot. It’s not “do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” The V2 sect has no more valid Sacraments to the point where I even question some Baptisms and marriages.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
It will never be “do as thou wilt” because we are forever bound by Divine Law.
DeleteWhat about Divine Law? The First Commandment forbids idolatry. If going to the Novus Bogus is all a matter of opinion, can someone go there and worship mere bread?
Delete—-Introibo
What's your opinion on praying with protestants if one has been invited to a protestant house for dinner and everyone is expected to join in a dinner table (grace) prayer?
ReplyDeleteRyan,
DeleteAll canonists and moralists are unanimous that private prayer between a Catholic and a non-Catholic is permitted if the prayer used is itself Catholic (e.g., Wernz-Vidal, etc.). As long as the Catholic form of grace before meals is used, it is private prayer and the prayer is Catholic. It is therefore permitted. If you want to make sure the Catholic grace prayer is used, ask for the honor of saying grace!
—-Introibo
Thank you again, Introibo, for all the time and work you put in to teach about the Faith and to answer questions for your readers. It seems a computer glitch didn't allow my original comment to go through a few days ago in response to this article. (My dear spouse, who is a weather geek,thought it may have been due to some solar activity messing things up.) Anyhow I wanted you to know it was timely for me that you posted this rebuttal to Fr. Cekada's article about SSPV. I have a lot of respect for Fr. C. and always will, but I was gratified to hear a different side of the issue. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteJannie,
DeleteComments like yours keep me writing! I, too, will always be grateful for the good Fr. Cekada has done. I wish there would be less rancor, more charity and unity among Traditionalists for the fight against Modernist Rome.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Hello everyone. I’ve recently come to realize that sedevacantism is the only tenable position a Catholic can hold. I attended my first SV Mass last Sunday after leaving the SSPX.
ReplyDeleteI have a question that I would like your input on.
Earlier this summer, I asked an SSPX priest if he would spiritually direct me. I am EXTREMELY scrupulous. I am regularly filled with doubts, confusion and fear. It has gotten to the point that Confession is a grueling ordeal. I asked this particular Society priest to direct me because he has been greatly helpful in the confessional. He gives me clear, straightforward answers and confessing to him removes my paralyzing fear of the Sacrament.
I’m sure many of you know that the best remedy for the scrupulous is blind obedience to a director. I believe he may be able to lead me out of this dark fog I am living in.
I’m just wondering what you guys think would be the best thing to do. I’m not sure if I should reveal that I’m SV to him? And can I confess my sins to him?
Thanks everyone and thanks, Introibo, this is a great blog.
@Kemper,
DeleteI see no reason not to confess to this priest (as long as he was validly ordained in the Traditional Rite). You need not tell him you are sede because it is not a sin. I don't know where you attend Mass now, but you might want to give THAT priest a try. He may be just as good; if not you can go back to the SSPX priest.
It's wonderful that God has lead you to the truth!!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Kemper,
Delete"It has gotten to the point that Confession is a grueling ordeal". Due to a very bad incident I had in the mid-80's with a NO "Priest", whenever I go to Confession now, my knees actually start to knock and I tremble. I force myself to go to Confession as often as I can as I want to be able to overcome the trauma that this No "Priest" by his words and actions left me with.
JoAnn
First time commenting here. Just want to say thanks for the great info on this blog as it has truly helped strengthen and fix my faith. I was sadly a MHFM supporter before but God has shown me my errors. Anyway I have been reading up on this whole Thuc issue(I currently attend mass at Father Mrozcka chapel, St. Annes,in white bear lake MN) and personally I'm about 50/50 either way. I guess I do have 1 question that I dont think I have seen answered by any Thuc supporters so maybe you could help.
ReplyDeleteFather Jenkins makes the point about the assumption of validity, in that Father Cekada and others are mistaken. His point is not a disagreement of the canon but rather the application. It makes sense to me that the teachings and canons that Thuc supporters cite is implied for ordinary circumstances and not in a time of almost universal apostasy. I'm not sure if you have listened to Father Jenkins most recent videos that touch on the subject but he makes a good point in that if validity is assumed then wouldn't that assumption also have to be given to anyone with photoshopped pictures, certificates and stories of a dead bishop? For instance couldn't I say that a traditional bishop consecrated me in the true rite, it was done in private, I can attest to its validity and the witnesses and the bishop are now dead, but I have a forged certificate and photoshopped pics. Wouldn't the validity be presumed and I would have to be considered a valid bishop?
Again thanks for the time and info and for helping me personally grow in my faith. God bless.
@Unknown,
DeleteThank you for the kind words, my friend. I'm glad God has used my blog to help you grow in the True faith!
As to your question re:Thuc,
While I respect fr. Jenkins, I wish they would let the whole Thuc issue go already. Fr. Mrozcka is a good and holy priest. I know almost all SSVP priests, and two of the three Bishops. They are holy clerics who are sadly mistaken on this issue.
There is a presumption of validity anytime a properly trained and validly ordained/consecrated Catholic cleric seriously sets about to perform a Catholic Rite of a Sacrament. What about "secret consecrations" and photoshopped pictures with forged certificates?
Fr. Jenkins conflates two issues: (A) ascertaining the FACT of the Consecration and (B) the presumption that is present when (A) is morally certain.
So first, it must be asked as a preliminary question, "Was Archbishop Thuc a properly trained and validly ordained priest who was validly consecrated as a bishop?" No one can contest that the answer to the question is an indisputable "yes."
Next, were Frs. Carmona and DesLauries propoerly trained and validly ordained priests who could be validly consecrated?" Yes, and both were approved theologians.
Most important; was the FACT of the Consecrations established to a point of moral certainty? As one writer summarized it:
Photographs published in a sedevacantist magazine, sworn eyewitness testimony, the testimony of the clerics involved, a consecration certificate signed by Bp. Thuc and the two laymen assisting, and a Vatican inquiry and widely-publicized “excommunication” against the clerics involved do not leave any reasonable doubt regarding the fact that the consecrations occurred.
Therefore, the presumption of validity now applies and the burden of proof is on Fr Jenkins and company to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the Consecrations were somehow defective.
I'm sure you can see how none of the elements in the hypothetical apply to the instant case. The Modernist Vatican does not "excommunicate" bishops over non-existent consecrations. In your hypothetical, (A) is far from morally certain so the presumption does not apply. Furthermore, photoshopping was not so easy in the 1980s as it is today.
The SSPV should be careful because everything they claim about Thuc could be said of Mendez and his Consecration of Bishop Kelly. Do we know if the photos were legitimate? Was the certificate forged? Did the priests lie? Remember, Bp. Kelly didn't announce the Consecration until AFTER Bp. Mendez died approximately 15 months AFTER the fact. Abp. Thuc's Consecrations took place while all involved were alive and the Modernist Vatican investigated and "excommunicated" those involved. No such thig happened in regard to Mendez. Hence, Thuc Consecrations have more evidence than the one performed by Mendez.
I hope this helped my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Ok yeah that's why I'm on the fence about it still, only been looking into it for a few months now and both sides present good arguments to me at least.
DeleteAre you familiar with the consecration Fr. Jenkins mentions about consecrating a non-catholic? That's the 2nd point he brings up that makes me questions it, because he cites Pius XII and his excommunication that's reserved for the Holy See. If true, would this invalidate the consecrations that followed being that Thuc would be excommunicated with only the Holy See being able to lift that ban?
Oh on a side note, being a former Dimond supporter I thoroughly enjoy reading your post about there position, makes me realize what a sucker I was lol. Another point you could add as a nail in there coffin is there hypocrisy when it comes to sacraments from "undeclared heretics". They had a debate and the opponent only quoted councils and dogmatic statements which when read with the "plain meaning" sense seem to contradict the dimonds position. What do they do to support their position? Cite extra concilliar sources like canon law, catechism, saints and others, the very same sources they discredit as containing heresy when it comes to BOD.
@Unknown,
DeleteGood point about the Dimonds! By God's grace you were led out of error. As to Thuc:
I do not know the alleged "non-Catholic" of whom Fr Jenkins speaks. However, it is irrelevant.
Two points: In a time of prolonged sedevacante,any priest can absolve from all censures, otherwise there would be "unpardonable sins."
Second, any excommunication (if true) would merely render consecrations ILLICIT (unlawful to perform), but they would be VALID.
---Introibo
Yes thankfully He led me to the truth! I will have to double check but it was either a supposed "Old Catholic" or "homosexual" but I'm not sure and dont want to mispeak or anything. Ok so for the first point wouldn't we be unable to know during this prolonged period if they were absolved from the excommunication. So not a matter of can they be absolved during sedevecant but rather how could we know or at what point would it be known? And then I think that gets to Fr. Jenkins additional point of if it is valid but illicit shouldn't we take the safer course and go with licit sacraments in light of all the controversy surrounding them, at least I think that's his position on it.
Delete@unknown
DeleteWell, as far as the homosexual is concerned, that doesn't make one non-Catholic. Archbishop Lefebvre ordained a mentally disturbed man, Juan fernandez Khron, to the priesthood. He tried to kill Wojtyla at Fatima with a large knife. He spent time in prison, abandoned the priesthood, and became an anarchist and lawyer. That doesn't "contaminate" the Archbishop, or call into question his judgement. Mistakes can (and are) made by the best of prelates.
Archbishop Thuc held a double doctorate as an approved theologian; he would know what to do to be absolved, and it is safe to assume he did so. An illicit consecration does not render the sacraments of those ordained by that subsequent bishop illicit. A simple adjuration would do. Once more SSPV had better be careful.
Bishop Mendez implemented the heretical reforms of Vatican II in his Diocese of Aricebo, and offered the Novus Bogus "mass." To the best of my knowledge and belief there is no abjuration of heresy on record. We only have the word of the priests after his death that he was absolved.
---Introibo
Thank you for the info and your time. Have a good day and God bless.
DeleteJust read the Heiner CMRI blog. Has anyone noticed that all the sede infighting and the follow me or else priests are all the ones who came from the SSPX? Independent Sedes and those from pre Vat II do not do this to one another.
ReplyDelete