Monday, March 2, 2015

The Burden Of Proof

Traditionalism is controversial by nature. Trying to wake people up to the fact that Jorge Bergoglio is not really the pope will spark no little amount of contention. Add to this the fact that, without a pope, there are issues within Traditionalism which cannot be resolved since there is no one who can give a final and binding decision.  "Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est" (i.e. "Rome has spoken, the matter is concluded") is a thing of the past in a state of sedevacante. I don't believe in controversy for the sake of controversy itself. Unfortunately, there are those who do, and they relish attacking Traditionalist priests and bishops.These are not intellectual disagreements; instead they attack their character. True priests and bishops are not above reproach, and we must call them out on any major flaws so that a repeat of the 1950s " a cleric can do no wrong" mentality never again holds sway.

However, to publicly attack a Traditionalist priest or bishop's orders without serious justification is not merely calumny, but a grave injustice to those Traditionalist Catholics who fearing that these priests and bishops may not be valid clergy, stay away from the sacraments. This is exactly what happened at the blog Pistrina Liturgica (hereinafter "PL"). For a detailed summary, please see my posts of 4/22/13, 6/8/13, 7/14/13, and 10/19/13. In short summation, the webmaster, who goes by the moniker "The Reader," possesses a near pathological hatred for Fr. Anthony Cekada and Bishop Daniel Dolan, whom he constantly refers to as "One Hand Dan." The reason? It is alleged that when Bishop Dolan was ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Lefevre in the 1970's, he only imposed one hand on his head instead of two. Fr. Dolan was one of the nine priests who broke away from the Society of St. Pius X to found the Society of St Pius V in 1983. After Fr. Dolan left the SSPV in 1989 over the issue of the Thuc consecrations, the remaining clergy in the SSPV sent a letter to him asking him to refrain from all further priestly functions because the Archbishop's use of only one hand instead of two made his ordination "dubious." (Interestingly, they never brought this point up when he was with them, only after he left!). In addition to my posts mentioned above, Fr Cekada published a refutation of the idea that ordination with one hand was dubious in his article entitled "The Validity of Ordination Conferred with One Hand." It can be found at

 After one of my readers sent a comment about the fact PL was now sending out a pamphlet, in Q & A format, attacking his orders yet again, I went on PL and began asking in the comments for the names of the witnesses of this alleged one hand ordination. I wouldn't give up after a massive back and forth of trying to dodge my inquiry. Without at least one witness, whose identity is known and has signed a sworn statement, the entire discussion about the validity of priestly ordination conferred with one hand becomes moot. Catholic theology DEMANDS that there is a presumption the rite was validly and correctly performed, whenever a bishop ordains a man to the priesthood. “When the fact of ordination is duly established, the validity of the orders conferred is naturally to be presumed.” (W. Doheny, Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases [Milwaukee: Bruce 1942] 2:72.) That means everything was done correctly--matter, form, and intention. Those who wish to impugn the validity of orders have the burden to show, with credible evidence that raises a reasonable doubt, that matter, form, or intention was lacking. This they have not done.

 It turns out The Reader's lackey, "The Watcher" has a blog of his own, also bashing Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada entitled The Lay Pulpit (hereinafter "LP").  It was brought to my attention that in his post of 1/3/15, LP attacked me and attempted to defend PL's assertion about one handed ordinations. Neither one is able to grasp the relatively simple concept of "having the burden of proof." They seek to hurt Bp. Dolan by casting doubt on his orders, and by extension, the orders of any priest  he ordains. This keeps good people away from the sacraments and hurts souls. I will reprint "The Watcher's" post from 1/3/15 entitled "A Moot Point" in red and will respond to each section below it without red color.

A recent Pistrina Liturgica article -- in addition to a whole series of earlier ones -- has dealt with the doubts about Daniel Dolan’s one-handed ordination.  In those earlier articles, Pistrina related how, after Dolan’s dubious ordination, nine priests (one-time colleagues of his) urged him to get those doubts resolved before continuing with his priestly duties, after which he responded by commissioning Anthony Cekada to write a tract arguing the validity of one-handed ordinations (which Pistrina then subsequently totally disproved and discredited).

As you will see in my posts listed above, PL hardly can be said to have "totally disproved and discredited" anything. None of the nine priests who signed the letter were at the ordination. One of them, Fr. Joseph Greenwell, was 12 years old in 1976 and living in Kentucky. He even admitted he signed the letter because Fr (now Bp.) Kelly simply told him to do so. They state, as a matter of fact, that a one-handed ordination took place with no personal knowledge and they name no witnesses. The doubt exists only in the imagination.

 This recent article dealt specifically with a contention by one of Dolan’s supporters that there was an “eye witness” who swore “before God” that Dannie was ordained with two hands, not one.  The problem is that this “eye witness” came forward to make his claim thirty-five years after the ordination – long after those nine priests had written their letter to Dolan.  Why, one might ask, didn’t he come forward then?  Pistrina pointed out this and several other problems with this “witness’s” account (which are detailed in the article). 

Bp. Dolan doesn't need a witness, HE does not carry the burden of proof because Abp. Lefebvre enjoys the presumption of validity under Church Law: The Principle:
Sacraments conferred by a Catholic minister, including Holy Orders, must be presumed valid until invalidity is proved. 


This is “the queen of presumptions, which holds the act or contract as valid, until invalidity is proved.” (F. Wanenmacher, Canonical Evidence in Marriage Cases, [Philadelphia: Dolphin 1935], 408.)

“When the fact of ordination is duly established, the validity of the orders conferred is naturally to be presumed.” (W. Doheny, Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases [Milwaukee: Bruce 1942] 2:72.)

Nevertheless, Bp. Dolan has a known, sworn witness that the ordination was done properly according to the rubrics. PL has nothing but conjecture from nine priests who weren't there and have no witnesses. PL claims to have witnesses (or witness, singular, depending on what things he wrote at different times) yet refuses to name them (or him/her). So what proof of a one handed ordination does PL have, ladies and gentlemen? None.

In response to this article, one of Dolan and Cekada’s supporters – one “Introibo” – wrote in as a “commenter” to challenge what Pistrina had to say.  Introibo started by saying that the nine priests’ testimony itself was fourteen years after the ordination, making it subject to doubt as well (strangely, though, he did not raise the same objection about his “witness’s” words, which were thirty-five years after the fact).  In the ensuing marathon of comments, Introibo, who happens to be a New York lawyer, went on to claim that he had a hard-and-fast witness, whereas Pistrina had none; and, being a lawyer, he then went on to claim that Pistrina had “no case” at all.  After repeated calls by Introibo for Pistrina to produce a “witness,” Pistrina responded by saying that there were witnesses to the one-handed ordination, but that they do not, for their own private reasons, wish to be identified – and hence, Pistrina is not at liberty to reveal their names.  Whereupon, Introibo, being a lawyer, seized upon this to contend (since Pistrina could not produce their names) that they did not exist -- and that Pistrina was lying about them (and everything else).

In one paragraph, The Watcher goes out of his way to state that I'm a lawyer no less than three times. While the term "lawyer" is a negative appellation for many, what I believe he's trying to accomplish is to show that I have some special training or specialized ideas as to what constitutes a "witness" and proof. In this case, it's not a matter of training,just simple common sense based on Church teaching. To wit:
  • It's plain logic that if you can impugn the reliability of a witness based on the length of time that passes between the event and his testimony, the fourteen years that passed between the ordination and the priests'  letter make it as unreliable as the statement from the witness thirty-five years after the fact. 
  • Bp. Dolan's witness was actually there at the 1976 ordination. The nine priests were not there and never even claimed to have any first hand witnesses. Which would you consider more reliable; a sworn statement from someone who was there at the event 35 years ago, or a letter written by nine priests 14 years after the fact and based on hearsay? 
  • I didn't raise any doubt about Bp. Dolan's witness because he doesn't even need one. I never claimed "I" had a "hard and fast witness." No witness is necessary because under Church Law the burden of proof is on the one seeking to cast doubt upon the validity of the sacrament.
  • If there were truly witnesses to a one-handed ordination, and they believed that this could raise doubt as to the validity of the sacrament, they have a grave duty in justice to make what they saw public. It would be sinful to withhold such information regarding validity when the salvation of souls could literally hang in the balance. Yet, for "private reasons" they will refuse to be identified. How convenient! All of them have compelling "private reasons" that surpass the duty to save souls! Remember that "Salus Animarum Est Suprema Lex" ("The salavtion of souls is the supreme law").
  • In the civil law, you have a Constitutional right to both know and confront any/all witnesses against you. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." In the absence of such confrontation, the witnesses testimony will be considered non-existent. In the instant case, we don't even know if such witnesses are real, let alone confronting them. The burden of proof must be high in Church Law as in criminal cases. Why? Can you imagine the bedlam if the Church allowed anyone who claimed without proof that "someone saw something" to call into question the validity of a sacrament? True Catholics must be morally certain that the sacraments they receive will be valid, unless there is credible evidence to the contrary. How credible are nameless, faceless "witnesses" to you?  There's more credibility in the man on the old Art Bell show who claims reptilian aliens in human form are controlling the world--- and he has witnesses--- but they can't speak or the aliens will kill them. 
If PL will cast doubt on the validity of the orders of a cleric based on conjecture, hearsay, and "secret witnesses," could you reasonably believe anything else he has to say about Bp. Dolan?

What Introibo failed to realize (or did not want to realize) is that there was no mention of such “witnesses” in the original Pistrina article – because there was no need to.  No such “witness” was necessary to prove doubt.  The fact that nine priests wrote to Dolan about his ordination being doubtful (and urging him to do something about it) was proof enough that a doubt existed.  And the Pistrina article addressed that doubt.  Another problem with Introibo’s “witness” is that he was the only one to make such an affirmation.  That, coupled with his Johnny-come-lately timing and his over-the-top rhetoric, strongly hints that it was braggadocio, not fact – and it is our belief that, one day, this “witness” will suffer much embarrassment for having done this bit of damage control for Dannie.

The fact that nine priests wrote a letter does nothing to give rise to doubt and overcome the presumption of validity---that everything was done correctly---enjoyed by Abp. Lefebvre. On what evidence is this doubt based? There is no evidence. None of them were there. None of them even claimed to have witnesses. If those same nine priests were to sign a letter stating that Elvis Presley was alive, does this induce a "doubt" as to Mr. Presley's death? Obviously not. The doubt must be reasonable, i.e. based on credible evidence. There is no such credible evidence backing up the letter of the priests. Secondly, alleged problems with Bp. Dolan's witness don't matter. The bishop is the one who needs no witness, because the Law of the Church clearly places the burden of proof on PL. The Watcher would reverse the burden of proof, contrary to Church teaching.

 It must too be pointed out out that Pistrina never stated that Dolan’s ordination was invalid (although Introibo and other “anonymous” commenters claimed it did); it only said that, since the ordination’s validity was in doubt, Dolan should take the safe path of removing that doubt by undergoing conditional ordination (as the Church has always prescribed in such cases).  Dolan, of course, did NOT take that path, but instead commissioned Anthony Cekada to write his lengthy tract “proving” the validity of one-handed orders – which, of, course, it did NOT.  It was a totally flawed mish-mash of mistranslation, faulty logic, and misquoting of official papal teaching; in short, it was a pack of lies.  But for some number of years, Cekada’s error-filled “explanation” was accepted by everyone (including those nine priest who had written that letter to Dolan).  But persistent doubts about it kept surfacing.  Then one day, a year or so ago, this same Introibo – because he was irked by Pistrina’s often referring to Dolan as “one-hand Dan” (a moniker, by the way, coined by one of Dolan’s former colleagues), challenged Pistrina to prove that one-handed ordination is doubtful.

Sorry, but claiming that someone's orders are doubtful has no difference in practice from claiming invalidity. The result is the same: you must stay away from those putative sacraments. If there is a priest known to be invalid (ordained in the Vatican II sect), you must stay away from him if he converts until he has been validly ordained in the Traditional Rite of the Church. What if he was ordained in the Traditional Rite, but it is reported by many known witnesses declaring under oath that the bishop garbled the words of the preface containing the form? He would be dubiously ordained. You must stay away from him unless/until the ordination is conditionally repeated because he might not be a priest. You cannot risk idolatry by worshiping what might be mere bread.  Therefore, any semantics about "doubtful" vs. "invalid" is disingenuous. 

 Second, without positive doubt based on credible evidence the ceremony is presumed valid and there is no "safer course." Third, read Fr. Cekada's monograph as well as my posts. The case for validity of one-handed ordinations is a far cry from "a pack of lies." The same cannot be said for PL and LP.

Well, Pistrina did just that – and in a thorough and decisive way.  And it is ironic (and appropriate) that it was Introibo, who, in issuing this unsolicited challenge, tried to discredit Pistrina and conversely vindicate his hero Dannie -- but accomplished just the opposite.  And it is now doubly ironic (and understandable) that this same Introibo – with his comments on the recent Pistrina article (and a subsequent article, by the way) – has come forward once again to argue that this Johnny-come-lately “witness” is, nevertheless, a witness (and that Pistrina had failed to produce one).  But his point is moot – and for more reasons than one. 

  • PL can't even get to first base by overcoming the presumption of validity, let alone prove one-handed ordination invalid in a "thorough and decisive" way.
  • I have no "hero" in Bp. Dolan--or any other cleric. I follow the evidence where it leads. PL and LP have none. For the record, I never even met Bp. Dolan.
  • The whole debate about one-handed ordinations being doubtful or not is moot! If you can't prove a one-handed ordination happened--or it is more likely than not to have happened--Church Law (and common sense) tell us it didn't happen.
First off, as Pistrina has tried (in its numerous responses to him) to explain to him over and over again that the issue is NOT about identifying or producing “witnesses” (and certainly not about claiming that Dolan’s ordination was invalid), but only about showing that there was doubt about that validity – enough doubt to prompt not only a letter from nine priests (including Dannie’s buddy Don Sanborn), but also a lengthy (and flawed) response (by Anthony Cekada) to that letter -- both of which are more than ample evidence of that doubt.  The vast majority of traditional clergy, then and now, understands that there was and continues to be doubt (and now so more than ever).  And, despite Introibo’s contention that it did not fit the legal definition of reasonable doubt, it was “reasonable” enough for those nine priests (as it is for the vast majority of traditional clerics) – and definitely genuine. And Introibo’s unceasing efforts to downplay or de-legitimize that doubt only betray his bias – and an ulterior motive for saying what he did.

  • It is about witnesses to overcome the presumption of validity Apb. Lefebvre enjoys and introduce reasonable doubt, thus carrying your burden of proof under Church teaching.
  • Nine priests had no problem with Bp. Dolan from 1976 until 1990, the year after he broke with them.
  • The nine priests saw nothing because they were not there. They list no witnesses nor did they ever claim to have any.
  • People can doubt anything. There are people that doubt the moon landing occurred. You can doubt the death of Elvis, and doubt the Earth is round. None of these doubts is REASONABLE, because they are assertions unsupported by credible evidence. If, in pre-Vatican II days, you went to the Holy Office and told the Cardinals there assembled that you doubted a cleric's ordination was valid because a one-handed ordination took place (based on alleged testimony from secret witnesses), what do you think they would do? Throw you out, lecture you on calumny and gossip, and admonish you for wasting their time! 
  • Notice the phrases "vast majority of traditional clerics" (like whom?) and "definitely genuine" (according to what established facts in evidence)?
  • I have a definite bias against cretins who keep people away from the sacraments by impugning a cleric's orders based on no evidence
Secondly, Introibo’s point is moot because the really salient point about all of this is not so much the doubt about those orders, but Dolan’s being too ARROGANT to remove that doubt – by taking the safe, prudent course of getting conditionally ordained.  Everything else is moot.  Everything else is irrelevant.  Conditional ordination was (and still is) the obvious (and common sense) thing to do.  It would have been so easy, so painless.  Had he done it, it would have displayed so much humility and good will on his part – and, in a single stroke, it would have put an end to all doubts about his orders.  But to do so requires humility and charity – in both of which Dolan is sorely lacking.  So, in lieu of taking that quick, easy step, he instead had his buddy Tony compose a lengthy (and now totally discredited) treatise arguing the validity of one-handed orders -- which makes one wonder why he went to all that trouble to avoid a simple fix.

Why "remove" a doubt that doesn't exist? You mean every time some whacky character says he doubts a sacrament was valid, it must be repeated? That's a sacrilege and would scandalize (unnecessarily) those good Traditionalists that went to Bp. Dolan and his priests, that perhaps the sacraments they received were null and void. It has nothing to do with a lack of humility and everything to do with good judgement not to "fix" something that was never "broken" in the first place! "Common sense" is something to which PL and LP are strangers. For the record, Fr. Cekada, who was present at the 1976 ordinations has affirmed since the letter of 1990 that two hands were used, and Bp. Dolan also has denied one hand was used. 

Please do not be afraid to avail yourself of the sacraments from Bp. Dolan or the priests he ordains based on some calumnious "doubt." At the blogs The Lay Pulpit and Pistrina Liturgica, you'll find a "Watcher" and a "Reader." Unfortunately, you'll search in vain for a "Thinker" or a "Truth Teller."


  1. I find it rather interesting that in the comment section of your post on Siri you urge someone to join SSPV and CMRI to receive the sacraments, yet this post addresses concern that SSPV does not appear to be dealing in truth.

    1. Without a pope, the sheep are scattered. No Society of priests is perfect. I disagree with the SSPV regarding the alleged invalidity of so-called "Thuc priests and bishops." Unless and until they can come up with eyewitnesses, they have no business telling Bp. Dolan to get conditionally re-ordained on the basis of hearsay testimony.
      None of this implies that they are not true priests who offer the true Mass and sacraments. They are good and holy priests, but even the best can make serious errors in judgement. This is one of them. PL and LP continue on their rant claiming to have witnesses and produce none. The SSPV has never done so.

  2. Excellent as usual. Shame to PL and LP. Hatred is their motivation.

  3. For the record I don't belong to CMRI nor have I ever attended one of their masses.With that said,I have noticed SGG and CMRI growing in membership and flourishing financially.Isnt it ironic the ppl that talk trash and condemn valid clergy are not growing?

  4. I wonder if the one-handed ordination was done on purpose by Lefebvre to cause more confusion.

    There are some other problems with these trad chapels though. Pistrina in a new entry brings up the problem of consecrating without a papal mandate, which I believe has the penalty of excommunication and obviously one could not lawfully use the orders received. Sedes have countered and invoked the principle of epikeia, however this also has problems: 1) it distorts the need for a papal election 2) it usurps a right of the pope 3) it presumes that it is God's Will for sede clergy to act as mini-popes like the "orthodox" and to continue headless in this fashion 4) it puts laymen at the whim of sede clergy, as they have no recourse to papal authority, and abuses of sede "authority" have been documented.

    Regarding the defection of some to "orthodoxy", Catholics in normal times have a pope. The situation today according to sedes is extremely abnormal and no clear solution is being implemented. This practically makes Catholicism look like the failed offshoot of the Great Schism. Obviously, I don't agree with this logic, however I'm not aware of any sedes calmly explaining why people should remain sede rather than become "orthodox". Assuming the sede position, we need to get a pope immediately, whether through redoubling prayer or recognizing someone elected or a new election.

    Also, various "traditionalist" clergy have at times been material schismatics by adhering to false bishops of Rome, and so technically they would not be allowed to function as priests, I don't believe. Lefebvre and Thuc both celebrated the novus ordo, which is a schismatic act, and so anyone who received orders from them became a schismatic. This is another problem, and I think it's becoming more clear to various groups: these actions were done on purpose, the modernists sent Thuc and Lefebvre in to ruin any "traditionalist" reaction and to multiply other confusing solutions.

    The SSPV, I believe after some research, is not sedevacantist but kind of like papal agnostics. The SGG group also contains sedeprivationists and it's not clear to me that it's logically consistent for sedevacantists and sedeprivationists to work together: consider if Francis were to become a "Catholic pope" tomorrow: sedevacantists would not recognize him as pope, but sedeprivationists would. Otherwise, that "sedevacantist" is actually a sedeprivationist, or doesn't have any clear stance on the situation. That would be a future schism: however, does the technical schism actually exist now?

    Both SSPV and CMRI created their societies without papal mandate which is another circumvention of the rules (I believe that's required). These groups also admit they do not possess ordinary jurisdiction which comes from a true pope but appeal to epikeia for supplied jurisdiction.

    Some sede clergy claim to be pastors, but I believe that's a title they don't have the authority to claim. So, these are some of the arguments put forth by some home aloners, or at least those who oppose particular clergy. Fr. Cekada, for instance, in his paper against Home Aloners, didn't really respond to some of these objections, but seemed to appeal to his authority versus lay canon lawyers. However, if we could question his authority for a moment, given the, his erroneous opinion on the Schiavo case, and so on, certainly I think people have a right to ask questions as Jesus says to "ask and you shall receive".


  5. (continued)

    Also, many people just don’t live anywhere near any sede clergy to begin with, so this problem has only been addressed so much and being home alone in this way would be a totally legitimate position from the sede point of view. Since impossible laws cannot bind, it would not be necessary to receive the sacraments when one cannot do so, and so the perfect act of contrition would substitute for confession, and so on.

    And there are probably other problems which maybe they are not aware of that would make "traditionalist" clergy unable to function without a true pope: again, I don't think chapels can be set up without papal approval, so there are a lot of these questions that just need answering. It doesn't necessarily show that "traditionalist" clergy can't function, but given that Catholics are not to use probabilism in receiving the sacraments, it seems like the safer course is to avoid these vagrant wandering clergy certainly unless and until various points are addressed and one has moral certainty that these sacraments are valid and licit.

    Obviously I believe the sedes need to turn their eyes towards restoring the papacy as immediately as possible. It may be in God’s Permissive Will for there to be a long vacancy, but I don’t think it’s in His Positive Will (He may allow a long vacancy, but He wanted us to have elected a pope). If there was truly and is truly no way to elect, sedes simply need to reason things through and prove that’s the case so there can be unanimous agreement and then Restoration. This blog’s been working on that by addressing sedeprivationism and the Siri thesis and so on, and there are only a finite amount of possibilities. Also given the indefectibility of the Church, it had to exist somewhere and does exist somewhere today which ought to be demonstrated: who the Church was and is, and many sedes have disagreement about who was and is the Church.

    If a miracle is needed to restore the papacy, this needs to be proven, and then everyone doubles down in prayer to ask for God to make it happen. Jesus says “ask and you shall receive” [a pope?], and also Matthew 7:9, “Or what man is there among you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he reach him a stone?” We ask for a pope, and God will supply it, because this is what we need. God will not give us more confusion, but we must ask Him for what we need and be persistent until we get it. If we’re not getting what we need, I’m hypothesizing we’re doing something wrong - which is better to know because then all we have to do is change and the problem is solved. So, if truly we await God to work a miracle, then we aren’t waiting on God, but we must focus on the prayer and penance we can do now. Otherwise sedes should proceed to hold a new election or accept someone already elected.

    From "Prayer: The Key to Salvation" by Fr. Mueller, "God must therefore have given man an infallible means, by the use of which he can preserve his innocence, and by the neglect of which he will certainly fall into sin".

    "True prayer, prayer offered with the requisite conditions, is infallibly efficacious because God has decreed that it shall be so, and God cannot revoke what He has once decreed." from: "Providence" by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

    Maybe we need to buckle down and pray better, or more, or to repent more strongly with sorrow for sins and implore God’s mercy on this situation. Prayer is an infallible solution to this confusion. God cannot fail us. God will act, and hopefully soon as it’s almost been 57+ years with no widely accepted true pope clearly reigning.

    As always, thank you for your writing, and I hope there is true unity soon among confused traditionalists!

  6. I also pray for God to return the Church to Her former glory with a reigning pope. In this effort of prayer, I join you as do all Traditionalists. However, a few salient points need to be made:
    Abp. Lefebvre did not perform a one-handed ordination to confuse anyone because it never took place. It's a "Traditionalist urban legend" much akin to the alligators which live in the NYC sewers. Your theory about Lefebvre and Thuc being some sort of "double agents" has--like the alleged one-handed ordination-- no crebible evidence to back it up.

    As to the use of epikeia,
    1. It supplies for jurisdiction until we can get back a pope using correct theological principles
    2. It can't usurp the right of the pope if we don't have one; the Church Christ founded must go on
    3. We must remain without a live pope to fill the office until all the necessary requirements are in place
    4. If you don't like the clergy, go elsewhere, but denounce them if they do something immoral or heretical.

    The SSPV is officially sedevacantist but they allow for Sedeprivationism and even recognize and resist as long as you (a) reject the errors of V2 and (b) the Post-V2 "popes."

    Fr. Cekada does not appeal to his authority (he has none) but he has shown his formal training in canon law gives the lie to Home Aloners. Fr. has the credentials, but is fallible, which is why we must follow the evidence where it leads, not
    1. Make evidence up or
    2. Follow evidence where we would LIKE it to take us!

  7. Thank you for refuting the urban legend of Thuc & Lefevbre being double agents.There is absolutely no evidence of this false garbage.

  8. It it's none of my business I understand.Why did you stop going to Ave Maria chapel and join the SSPV?

    1. I didn't stop going completely, and most likely, I never will. I was with Fr. DePauw at the Ave Maria Chapel from November 1, 1981 until his holy passing on May 6, 2005. He was my spiritual father, and responsible for my conversion out of the Vatican 2 sect.
      After Fr. died, the Chapel was without a priest for 3 1/2 yrs. while the Board of Directors looked for a new pastor. They wanted a priest just like Fr. DePauw who was ordained pre-Vatican 2, and never said the Novus Bogus "mass."

      I thought that may never happen, and rather than miss Mass to pray in the Chapel, I knew a great many Traditionalist priests during those 24 years. I was most friendly with the priests of the SSPV and agreed with them on many issues. They were, for the most part, holy priests who try their best. I began attending Mass there.
      On June 29, 2008, the Board of Directors shocked us by announcing that they had found a new pastor to succeed Fr. DePauw! Fr.John Evangelista was a former Benedictine hermit, ordained in 1962 (just before the opening day of V2 on 10/11/62). He had never said the Novus Bogus, and had spent years after his expulsion from the hermitage (Because of his refusal to use the V2 "mass") offering the True Mass and sacraments for groups of Traditionalists. At the age of 78, he now wanted to settle in one place.

      He publicly signed the Profession of the Catholic Faith, the Anti-Modernist Oath, and swore that he rejected the errors of V2. He is a good priest. My problem with him is that he is not sedevacantist, but holds the same position as the SSPX. See my post of 11/14/13 for more on "una cum" Masses. Since he uses the name of Bergoglio in the Canon, I will not attend on a regular basis. He is very sharp, but not like the SSPV. He is also hard of hearing and needs to recite everything in the "vox Clara" or loud tone of voice. You can hear every word of the Canon at the back of the Chapel! (At least you know he got the Words of Consecration correct, lol).

      So, I attend the SSPV, except for a couple of Sundays each year. I still have friends at Ave Maria, and it's good to see them. I also attend on All Saints Day, the day I converted. My parents, both gone for years already (God rest their souls), converted soon after me, and we would attend Mass there together each Sunday. When I visit Ave Maria, my mind takes me back to those days and I remember how we would go eat breakfast after Mass and discuss Father's always awesome sermon. Those are some of the happiest memories of my life. So, I happily attend the SSPV, but I return to my "spiritual home" so to speak, a couple of times each year.

  9. OK thank you for responding.LoL @priest being loud,haha.I grew up novus ordo,attending the indult for about 1 year,then switching to a traditional catholic church *sedevacantist* in Aug 2014.

  10. I discovered sedevacantism in 2011 but waited 3 years to exit the novus ordo.Not wanting to make a drastic decision on a whim,I learned all I could before joining traditional catholic church in Aug 2014.(Wanted to be sure it was the right decision)

    1. Deo gratias, Christ showed you the way out of the V2 sect and brought you into the One True Church!