Monday, September 25, 2017

Intolerance: Virtue And Vice

The Virtue of Intolerance

Intolerance can be both a virtue and a vice. On one hand, in today's world, we are told we must be tolerant of everything and everyone. If you say anything negative about another person's beliefs or actions, you will be accused of intolerance and extremism/fanaticism. The basis of this is the vile doctrine of religious and moral relativism, i.e.,"Whatever makes you happy and works for you is 'your truth,' and whatever makes me happy and works for me is 'my truth.'  We have Vatican II, and its poster-boy, Jorge Bergoglio, to thank for relativism's grip on the cultures of the world--- "Who am I to judge?" (moral relativism) and "Atheists can go to Heaven" (religious relativism). In the practical order, moral and religious relativism go hand-in-glove, as Bergoglio amply demonstrates. To be intolerant of evil and error, especially when not politically correct, is a virtue.

On the other hand, there are others (like "follow me or die" Traditionalist clerics), who insist on imposing theological opinions on others while having no Magisterial authority. Unfortunately, Fr. Anthony Cekada falls into this category, and this kind of intolerance is a vice. I'll write on the virtuous kind of intolerance first, and then Fr. Cekada's non-virtuous intolerance.

  Recently, I saw a citation I've used before from theologian Berry:

"The prophecies of the Apocalypse [book of Revelation] show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of Pope; and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church. (See The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1927], p. 119).

This is most accurate, as even St. Augustine referred to Satan as Simius Dei---"the ape of God." Consider the words of St. Augustine and theologian Berry as they relate to the Vatican II sect:

  • The "church" of Satan is clearly predicted in Apocalypse 2: 9. (Vatican II sect claims to be the Roman Catholic Church in a false imitation)
  • It has its own invalidly ordained ministers who bring false sermons and invalid sacraments (except some baptisms and marriages)--See 2 Corinthians 11: 4-5. 
  • It has its own system of theology (See the 16 Documents of Vatican II with the new and heretical ecclesiology)
  • It has false and lying wonders (the "Charismatic movement," etc.)
Vatican II and Moral Relativism

 More than fifty years after the Council ended, and started a new sect, we are reaping the results of its "who am I to judge" moral relativism. Remember the words of Christ: "For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." (St. Matthew 24: 37-39). I'm not predicting or hinting the end of the world, as false Protestant ministers like the late Harold Camping did. However, the times certainly seem to be like Noah. The statistics bear this out. 

  • 71% of Americans believe divorce is morally acceptable
  • 68% of Americans believe fornication is acceptable as long as the two people "love" each other
  • 63% of Americans believe shacking up ("cohabitation") is okay
  • 63% of Americans believe it's OK for married people to have sexual thoughts about someone other than their spouse
  • 63% of Americans believe sodomite relations are okay
  • 61% of Americans believe it is acceptable to have a baby out of wedlock
  • 69% of Americans believe euthanasia should be permitted
  • 53% of Americans think having an adulterous affair is justifiable
  • 50% of Americans identify as "pro-choice"--the alleged right to murder an innocent unborn baby
(See George Barna, America at the Crossroads, (Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Books, [2016], pg. 9; abortion statistic from 2017 Gallup Poll).
Vatican II and Religious Relativism   

Let's look at two of the most Catholic countries in the world before Vatican II to see the decimation when "religious liberty" and the idea that "beliefs don't matter" take hold.

1. Ireland

Eighty-four percent of the Republic’s citizens still describe themselves as Catholic, but that’s becoming more of a cultural than a religious identity. According to the country’s archbishop, weekly church attendance has declined from 90 percent in 1984 to 18 percent in 2011. Less than half of Irish now consider themselves religious, and surveys show religiosity is declining faster in Ireland than almost every other country in the world. Ireland now ranks seventh in the world for atheism. And Ireland’s Catholics are decidedly non-orthodox about their faith: Ninety percent believe priests should be allowed to marry, for instance. Ireland once supplied priests to churches throughout the world, but the country now has so few that the church fears there may soon not be enough for weddings and funerals. (See They have legalized sodomite "marriage."

2. Belgium
Once one of the most Catholic countries, as of 2009, only 56.8% baptize their children and only 5% attend the Novus Bogus "mass." They have legalized abortion, euthanasia (including children who want to die), and sodomite "marriage."

Finally, how about these statistics from Kenneth C. Jones, Index of Leading Catholic Indicators (2003):

 A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.

Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus.

 Intolerance is a virtue. It doesn't mean we go around hating people, but ideas and actions should be forcefully hated and condemned. We should be intolerant of abortion, sodomite "marriage" and the idea that beliefs don't matter, because "all religions lead to God." If someone believes all religions lead to salvation, then he believes he has the correct perspective to the exclusion of all who think otherwise, whom he would consider wrong and (ironically) be intolerant of their belief! Relativism is self-refuting, and has lead to the disaster of the moral and religious chaos all around us. Objective truth and  objective morality exist, and it carries with it great implications for us. We must strive to live in accordance with them. 

 Intolerance as a Vice

 As the regular readers of my blog know, I believe that it is OK to attend the Mass of a valid priest who professes the Integral Catholic Faith, is not in actual union with the Vatican II sect, yet uses the name of Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass (so-called "Una Cum" Mass). Please see my posts of 7/10/17 ("Una Cum") and 8/14/17 ("Prayers For Non-Catholics") for the full background. 

My opinion has been challenged by Fr. Anthony Cekada, a leading sedevacantist priest, who thinks attendance is sinful and anyone who disagrees with him is somehow benighted. Here is what he had to say about my blog post "Una Cum":

More recently, an anonymous sedevacantist blogger put up a lengthy post with what he thought was the ultimate gotcha argument against Grain of Incense: In the beginning of the 19th century, Pope Pius VII, he claimed, allowed the phrase pro Rege nostro Georgio to be placed into the Canon of the Mass in England, just after the name of the pope and the bishop in the una cum.

Since George III, obviously, was a Protestant heretic and a pope approved inserting his name — the blogger’s argument went — there’s no real problem for sedes to assist at a Mass where the name of a heretical pope is inserted into the Canon.

The blogger cited no papal decree for his rather astounding factual claim, and nothing to this effect appears in the official Decreta Authenica of the Vatican’s Congregation of Sacred Rites.

The only source the blogger provided was this link, which leads to an 1806 Latin-English missal for the laity,  in which the phrase pro Rege nostro N. (for our King, N.) has been inserted into the Canon. How did it get to be put into a Missal for the laity? Who knows? We certainly don’t have to accept the authority of  its publisher,  P. Keating of Brown & Co., 37 Duke St., Grosvenor Square.

But in any event, as regards the priest’s altar Missal itself, the liturgical commentators are clear: The Missal of Pius V discontinued the mention of the king or civil rulers in the Te Igitur, and the practice was allowed only by way of privilege (as in Spain and Austria), where the ruler was a Catholic.

Caught out on the specific issue of the Canon, the blogger replied that, well, having consulted one of the four thousand books in his personal library, he finds that the Church allowed other public prayers to be chanted for a non-Catholic monarch or president.

Well sure, — but this was in the official’s civil capacity as head of a secular state. And in the case of England, this took the form of a prayer chanted after the Mass was over.

The Pope, on the other hand, is prayed for during the Canon of the Mass in his religious capacity as head of the Church.

If the blogger couldn’t figure out that basic distinction, his four thousand books haven’t done him a lot of good. Maybe he should get with (sic) the Bergoglio’s environmentalist program and recycle them. (See

Got all that? Fr. Cekada has not engaged my arguments, but merely dismisses them in an intellectually shoddy manner.

 The fact that an 1806 missal for the laity in England contains a prayer for the King in the Canon, and that practice was eliminated since the 16th century, should raise some eyebrows that perhaps the King's name was used. Nevertheless, he wants to dismiss it for a lack of an authoritative decision from the Vatican. That's fair. However, one of those four thousand books I have in my library, was one contained in Fr. Cekada's library as well. It was theologian Szal,  The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press, [1948] which he cites in his article The Grain of Incense. I wasn't "caught out on the specific issue of the Canon," but rather Fr. Cekada got caught out on the portion of Szal he didn't cite. I went back and examined Fr. Cekada's article The Grain of Incense available to view/download at On page 10, footnote 50, Fr. Cekada writes, "... From [theologian Fr. Ignatius] Szal (183), though, it seems that the most the Holy See occasionally tolerated was a prayer for a lay heretic or schismatic in his capacity as a head of state (King, President, etc.) — but never one for a heretical or schismatic cleric."

This changes his argument substantially to, "It's permissible to pray for a heretical head of state liturgically, but not a heretical cleric." Says whom? When I say, "whom" I mean what approved theologian, canonist, or decree of the Holy See supports this contention? Not theologian Szal. Now, Fr. Cekada is inferring something not expressly addressed. From page 183 of Szal's book, we read:

Benedict XIV, in an encyclical letter of March 1, 1756, condemned the practice of mentioning liturgically the name of the Bishop or Patriarch when he was recognized as a heretic or a schismatic. However, a favorable reply was given by the Holy Office on February 23, 1820, for the Archdiocese of Quebec. It was revealed in this case that prayers were said for the Pope, for the Bishop, and for the King, at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. And at Solemn Mass there was sung the "Domine, salvum fac Regem." The continuance of both practices was tolerated. Here, then, there was question of a heretical monarch, but the same principle of tolerance could also find application when there was question of a schismatic.

Fr. Cekada argues that it is a grave sin to attend an Una Cum Mass, and that the King of England (a) was only prayed for in his capacity as head of a secular state, and (b) in any event, his name did not appear in the Canon.

Here are the pertinent problems of Fr. Cekada's position and his attempted defense of it:

1. Theologian Szal makes it clear that the King of England was prayed for liturgically.

2. Fr. Cekada makes an unsupported assertion that it was strictly in his civil capacity as head of a secular state.

3. There is nothing in Szal’s text that supports this contention. It is Fr. Cekada’s assumption for which he supplies no citation to relevant authority.

4. In the case of England the monarch is also the Head of the false Anglican Sect. To hold one office necessarily entails the other. For example, if we pray for the U.S. President, we pray for the Chief Executive of the Nation. We also pray for the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces serving the U.S., because that is intimately bound up as one of the powers and duties of the office. You cannot impeach and remove Donald Trump as Commander-in – Chief of the armed forces while retaining him as Chief Executive of the Nation, or vice-versa. To pray for the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces is to pray for the Chief Executive of the Nation.

5. Since the time of Henry VIII, the King (or Queen) of England is also the Head of the Anglican Church. Just as you can’t separate the functions of the American President, the same holds with regard to the English monarch. In order to be the Head of the Anglican sect, you must be the English monarch. To be the English monarch, you must be the Head of the Anglican sect. The monarch of England is therefore a religious office. In a real sense, one could consider the King/Queen of England a cleric.

6. It is not at all clear from the text of the prayer used liturgically that the King of England is only being prayed for as head of a secular state, especially when England in 1820 had a state religion and Catholicism was merely tolerated. The person in the pew would think that the King --and all he represents--are being prayed for, and if this were not true, (if he were only being prayed for as Head of a secular state, but people would think otherwise) the liturgical prayer would be scandalous.

7.  However, the Church cannot give that which is evil (scandalous), so praying for a heretic, even one who is the head of a false sect, cannot be considered wrong or contrary to Divine Positive Law. Fr. Cekada has also not shown how praying for a heretic in the Canon is qualitatively different than in other official liturgical functions. Is one fine, but the other a grave sin? Is it only the name of a heretic in the Canon that's sinful? What authority makes these distinctions? Fr. Cekada even contends that to make a visit to a Traditionalist chapel to adore the Blessed Sacrament is a sin if done while an Una Cum Mass is being offered!

8. Back to my analogy with the U.S., Fr. Cekada claims that in the Canon of the Mass, the pope is prayed for as Head of the Church. The 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows the U.S. President, when prevented from exercising his powers, to retain the office as a placeholder, while the Vice-President receives all powers and duties of office as Acting President. Here we have a "material" president who holds the office devoid of authority. Sound like sedeprivationism? It should! Why can’t we do the same in regard to Francis and pray for him as material papal placeholder? How about as Head of State of Vatican City?

9. Fr. Cekada offers no citations saying #8 above can’t be done, especially since theologian Guerard des Lauriers didn’t discuss his thesis until after the Great Apostasy of Vatican II, so you will find no approved pre-V2 theologians writing about its plausibility, merits, or demerits. Unlike Fr.Cekada, Fr. (later Bp.) Guerard des Lauriers was a top theologian pre-Vatican II. He drafted the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus at the request of Pope Pius XII which defined the dogma of the Blessed Virgin Mary's Assumption into Heaven.  

10. What does Fr. Cekada offer to “prove” the name of Bergoglio can’t be used if the sedeprivationist theory is viable? His own ipse dixit.  (The authority of  P. Keating of Brown & Co., 37 Duke St., Grosvenor Square, is looking better all the time).

11. In the practical order, you cannot attend the Mass of a sedevacantist priest who disagrees with Fr. Cekada. One of the nine ways to be an accessory to another's sin is by counsel. The CMRI, SSPV, and some independent sedevacantist priests tell their congregations it's OK to attend an Una Cum Mass by the SSPX or other "R&R" clergy. If what Fr. Cekada says is true, they are telling people it's alright to commit a grave sin. That's public scandal, and manifestly evil. You could not go to that priest's Mass just as if he were to counsel people it's not a sin to go to an Eastern Schismatic liturgy, or the Novus Bogus "mass." Does Fr. Cekada believe this is the case? He may end up keeping many people "Home Alone" even when SSPV and CMRI chapels are readily available! 

As far as being able to discern basic distinctions, I have no problem in that area. For example, I know the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary means of life support. This prevents me from making a disgrace of myself by sanctioning the MURDER of Terri Schiavo by dehydration and starvation. My spiritual father, the late, great Fr. Gommar DePauw was a REAL Canonist, having received his JCD from Catholic University of America in 1955 (pre-Vatican II). He taught Canon Law and Moral Theology at Mount St. Mary’s Major Seminary for the Archdiocese of Baltimore from 1955-1962, and was a peritus (theological expert) at Vatican II, helping fight the Modernists. Fr. De Pauw, like ALL Traditionalist Catholic clergy (except Fr. Cekada and his buddy Bp. Dolan) roundly condemned what was happening to her from the pulpit using Catholic moral principles applied to the facts at hand. If Fr. Cekada claims he didn't know all the facts of the case (as some say in his defense), he had no business making such claims regarding (literally) life and death. 

Not only did Fr. Cekada disgrace himself, he made other Traditionalists look like ghouls by claiming a direct sin against the Fifth Commandment was morally permissible. To my knowledge, he has not been humble enough, nor man enough, to admit he was wrong and apologize for what scandal he caused.

Intolerance can be a virtue or a vice. In the Vatican II sect, they teach people must never be intolerant (except when it comes to Traditionalists). For some clerics, you must be intolerant of anything that contradicts them, even on matters not settled by those with Magisterial authority. I thought Fr. Cekada would give me a real intellectual challenge. Instead, he prefers to be flippant and dismissive. If this all he learned while at Econe, he may want to add his diploma to my books when I take them to the Bergoglian environmental recycling plant.

Addendum 10/1/17
This week Fr. Cekada added some material to his Quidlibet blog about this post. I reproduce it below and respond.

But even after the publication of the first version of this post on September 20, 2017,  our blogger still did not learn his lesson.

So, in a September 25 post, he went on a 1500-word tear against me based entirely on the assumption that the Prayer for the (Protestant) King permitted at Benediction in Canada took place during an “official liturgical service,” thus making (he assures us) an excellent analogical argument for tolerating the naming of a heretic/imposter as Vicar of Christ in the Canon of the Mass.

But all this windbaggery instantly collapses once you learn that, unlike the Mass, Benediction is not considered a true liturgical service.

Pfft. Strike three. And down goes yet another ignorantly made and pompously phrased objection.

And so here we are, ten years after my original article, and despite all the squawking, no one has yet been able to make a credible and coherent case against my arguments.

My response:

1. There was never a "first version of this post on September 20, 2017." My readers know I only publish posts on Mondays for the last three years. There were two previous posts that addressed this issue, "Una Cum" of July 10, 2017, and "Prayers For Non-Catholics" of August 14, 2017. I have no idea what, exactly, it is to which Fr Cekada refers. I do find it interesting that he knows the word count of the post! (If he even got that right).

2. If Benediction is not a "true liturgical service" why didn't he dismiss my objection about the king of England by saying so? Instead, he split hairs over the king being prayed for only as a secular head of state (an argument he used in a footnote to Grain of Incense).   When I pointed out that the king's office as head of state cannot be separated from his office as head of the false Anglican sect, he had to come up with something new.

3. Theologian Szal, whom we both cite, has Benediction under the heading, Commemorating Schismatics in the Liturgy. (See The Communication of Schismatics with Non-Catholics, pgs. 182-185) Certainly, the Mass is liturgical and the Holy See permitted Domine, salvum fac Regem to be sung. Let me guess his next excuse; "It's only sung, not a proper prayer! It's OK to sing A Mighty Fortress Is Our God just don't use Bergoglio's name."

4.  Fr Cekada is prideful and will never admit correction. He is sarcastic and condescending, and I will not lower myself to his level after a reader fraternally corrected me in the comments to this post. As proof of what I just asserted, when Fr. Cekada defended the murder of Terri Schiavo, he received much medical information from Dr. James Gebel, M.D. an expert in persistent vegetative states, and Fr. Cekada dismissed what he had to say based on Fr's alleged "common sense." To my knowledge, Fr Cekada has not been humble enough, nor man enough, to admit he was wrong and apologize for what scandal he caused.

5. Lastly, if he really believes that Una Cum Masses must be shunned, why does he not tell people to shun the Masses of sede priests who tell sede congregants that going to this evil Mass is ok? Isn't that counseling another to sin? How can you trust their moral judgement in Confession? He never even attempted to respond to this inherent inconsistency with what he professes and what he does.



  1. The only valid mass I have is prayed by a priest connected to SSPX. If you leave it, I'm without Mass. I believe that this subject may be the weakness to be used against sedevacantistas. The priests should come to the conclusion that the timing is not conducive to debating and choosing which mass una cum should not be avoided.

    1. I agree. Under Fr Cekada's contention, one must even stay away from sedevacantist Masses where the priest tells you it's ok to attend Una Cum Mass because he would be counseling people to commit an "objectively gravely sinful act." Treating the Una Cum as an Eastern Schismatic Liturgy simply isn't justified.


  2. I would want to know. Does it constitute no Sin at all to add the name of a Heretic pretend Pope to the canon of the Mass?

    1. If it's a prayer for a material pope and his conversion, I would argue it is no sin. For the priest, if he adds the name out of human respect because he's a sedevacantist in the SSPX and he's afraid to leave I'd argue the priest sins; at least a venial sin. In the case of the laity it is not a sin if no other option is available.


    2. “In the case of the laity it is not a sin if no other option is available”, does the availability of other options cause it to be more or less sinful?

  3. Fr. Cekada has no business trying to bind anyone to his una cum Mass issue. He is not Pope any more than Frankie is Pope. They are both spreading chaos and confusion among the people. What Fr. Cekada did regarding Terry Schivao is unconscionable and, if he was a man of God, he would admit his wrongdoing.

    1. I couldn't agree more Joann!


    2. Introibo: "If it's a prayer for a material pope and his conversion, I would argue it is no sin."

      But the problem is: As far as the SSPX are concerned, it's a prayer for Jorge Bergolio (AS Bishop of Rome, and known as Pope Francis, possessing full authority) and the local (most probably heretic) Novus Ordo bishop, being prayed for AS ORTHODOX BELIEVERS AND PROFESSORS OF THE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC FAITH, something that sedevacantists positively know to be manifestly untrue, which the laity assisting at una cum masses assent to by the "Amen" said at the end of the prayers of the Canon of the Mass.

    3. We know that to be true, but if St. Thomas More could receive Mass from an undeclared heretic, why can't we? There is no one to declare what we know to be true, and the Church (always the wise Mother) allows for Her children to receive the sacraments from such.

      Also, even if the SSPX believes that is the case, we do not assent to THEIR BELIEF but what is objectively true. If Francis is a material pope, thinking him to be otherwise doesn't change the reality. The AMEN would correspond to objective reality and not the subjective mistake of the priest should sedeprivationism be true.


    4. Hello Introibo.
      What's St. Thomas More got to do with this? The two issues cannot be conflated. St. Thomas More WASN'T going to a Mass where he knew that a FALSE pope was being mentioned in the Te Igitur AS an "orthodox believer and professor of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith." It's inescapable that it's a manifest untruth being mouthed by SSPX priests (by "mistake") for one's assent. All one needs to do is read Bp. Sanborn, Fr. Cekada and Patrrick H. Omlor (Sedevacantists and the "Una Cum" Problem) to understand that "mental gymnastics" on the part of sedevacantists insofar somehow withholding assent doesn't work.
      We obviously DON'T need anyone to declare what we know to be true. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that you can't hold the sedevacantist position in good faith, which would be absurd.
      Introibo: "Also, even if the SSPX believes that is the case..." But they obviously don't really believe that "Nope" Francis is an "orthodox believer and professor of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith," otherwise why the "doctrinal differences"? Why hasn't Vatican II and all its reforms been adopted by the SSPX, including adherence to the new Code of Canon Law, the Novus Ordo Missae, the new catechism, Assisi and the ecumenical push, Amoris laetitia etc.? (And if we begin to delve into why the SSPX make this "mistake," a picture of their faulty/false ecclesiology and their seemingly incurable condition of "cognitive dissonance" begins to unfold - and we can thank Fr. Cekada, Bp. Sanborn and other notable sedevacantist clergy and laymen for our elucidation and enlightenment in these matters.)
      So, they are mouthing something that both the sedevacantist and they know to be a falsehood in the very Canon of the Mass, whilst testifying under oath, according to "This is the Mass, as described by Henri Daniel-Rops", Copyright 1958 by Hawthorn Books Inc., 70 Fifth Avenue, New York City, U.S.A., page 96.

      "The hour of the sacrifice has come; the celebrant moves more solemnly than hitherto, all motions are charged with a consciousness of their mystic meaning as he progresses from action to action, now joining his hands, now raising his eyes to heaven, again kissing the altar once more; and then, having made the three-fold sign of the Cross over the oblata, he finally extends his hands, palms downward, over the chalice and the host IN THE MANNER OF ONE WHO GIVES TESTIMONY UNDER OATH. There are five prayers said before the consecration of the elements (i.e. the five prayers of the Canon)." (Emphasis added)
      End of part 1

    5. Part 2
      Obviously you can't see the gargantuan problem with SSPX priests, SSPX laity and sedevacantists alike being cognizant that a gross untruth is being uttered during the recitation of the Canon of the Mass, but don't worry many, many others can. As you will have realized, this facet of the problem is to do only with the aspect of numbering, of all people, Bergolio among the "orthodox believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith."
      Introibo: "If Francis is a material pope, thinking him to be otherwise doesn't change the reality."
      No offence, truly, but I rather think I don't find this as profound a statement as you do. Here's my statement in return: Whether Francis is a "material" pope or not doesn't change the reality that each time he's mentioned in the Te Igitur of the Canon of the Mass by SSPX priests it is for our assent that this hideous heretic/apostate/antichrist is reckoned among the orthodox believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. It's a FALSEHOOD being uttered in the most sacred of settings on earth, and the fact that we say "Amen" is the sign one freely gives of their assent to the ACTUAL WORDS BEING SAID BY THE PRIEST OFFERING THE SACRIFICE. Words matter. Those words are meant to unequivocally indicate what they mean and mean what they indicate. (caps always for emphasis only). And, again, engaging in mental gymnastics and the Mass do not a marriage make.
      Introibo: "The AMEN would correspond to objective reality and not the subjective mistake of the priest should sedeprivationism be true."
      Again, no offence, but I'm not interested in your pesonal, hypothetical/supposition re: sedeprivationism. Bp. Sanborn, the Guerardian, doesn't agree with your views on attendance at una cum Masses. And the FSSPX aren't making a "mistake"; rather, their mention of Francis in the Te Igitur is a manifestation of one of the two opposing thoughts going through their minds at the same time AND their faulty ecclesiology.
      It's a symptom of both of the above. Simply put, it's madness - one minute they can be railing against Francis in their sermon as being heretical and the next he's being numbered among the orthodox believers and professors of the Church. Go figure.

    6. You might very well be correct and, unlike Fr Cekada, I will not declare something as "mandatory belief" where the Church has not spoken.

      1. How about the issue of the Great Western Schism when there were multiple claimants to St Peter's Throne? No one knew who (if anyone) was the true pope. Under your theory, no one could go to Mass because they might be objectively lying during the Canon by naming an impostor or objectively schismatic by naming no one if one of them was true. You'd be "giving your assent" to a falsehood---or is it ok to assent to a falsehood provided you don't know for certain if it's false or not? Or is a falsehood ok as long as the pretenders hold the Catholic Faith? Please tell me what the Church teaches in this matter with relevant citations.

      2. Be careful when writing about the ordinary and obvious meaning of words. Don't V2 apologists say sedevacantism is heresy because Vatican I taught there would be "perpetual successors" in the papacy? V1 was talking about the OFFICE of pope which is orthodox in its belief by definition. Why can't this be true in the Canon?

      3. Guerard did not flesh out all the ins and outs of his theory. Bp Sanborn is not an approved theologian as he was. Now in the wake of V2 there is no Magisterial authority to rule. (Despite Fr Cekada's claims regarding himself to the contrary; you must follow him or else)!

      4. Can a priest who no longer believes in Transubstantiation validly offer Mass? Yes. Do we assent to his heresy? No. If he is a manifest heretic you cannot attend his Mass because of the heresy. What if he were an occult heretic. Do you unwittingly assent to his heresy, or is it the meaning of the Church's Liturgy to which we assent?

      I don't have all the answers. However, I do ask a lot of the right questions, and I will not answer these questions authoritatively for others.


    7. PART 1.
      Thank you for your reply, Introibo. I'll try to make my response as brief as possible. Albeit this issue is, to say the least, polarizing I think we're on the same page when it comes to some of the essentials. (a) Assistance or non-assistance at una cum Masses is a matter of conscience. (b) Souls cannot be bound regarding attendance at una cum Masses.
      Under ordinary circumstances, the primary motive/reason a person attends Mass is to worship God. Ergo, if they are at a Mass it goes without saying that they aren't committing a sin/acting wrongfully/offending God by being there. They may be conflicted with doubts and worried, but if they're physically present it means they think it's ok to be there. Now, I'm sure that you and others can see the basic logic here; it'd vitiate the primary reason for attendance if one thought it was wrong/sinful - "I wish to worship Almighty God, but I'll consciously offend Him by doing so." The notion is absurd, yes? I believe that the way for non-una cum clerics to approach this issue is to make it clear that they aren't setting out to bind consciences, but to point out why they think that attendance at una cum Masses is wrong and why a Catholic would be a better witness to the Faith by avoiding them (Which, by the way, I think is exactly what Dr. Lamb is doing).
      To make it easy, I'll number my responses correspondingly.
      1. Instead, I'll point you to a penny catechism with bookmarks in the sections teaching about lying and conscience. And I'm not being facetious.
      The Great Western Schism is NOT a true parallel/comparision. Under our *Catholic teaching* all parties could go to Mass during GWS, because each claimant was a CATHOLIC, and their adherents believed, in conscience, that the person to whom they adhered was the Pope and true Vicar of Christ on earth, as opposed to the sedevacantist who believes that the solitary claimant is a hideous heretic and apostate whose mission in life is to sever people from the Church even as he's severed himself. And, again, the primary issue I'm addressing here is the reckoning of Francis as an orthodox believer and professor of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. We, as sedes, have gone way beyond merely calling Francis' Catholicity into question; we've staked our salvation on he being no pope at all. The Catholicity of the three claimants during GWS was not the issue. GWS was driven by politics, whereas the "crisis" today is driven by theology. Do you see the distinctions?

    8. PART 2.

      2. No, thank you. I'm not going to be curtailed in my speech due to the erroneous ravings of VII apologists. Why not in the Canon? Because in the Canon the priest is testifying not only (obviously) to the office of the papacy, but specifically/directly by name to the person who (supposedly, in the case of Francis) currently holds that office, AS being an "orthodox believer and professor of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith." For a CATHOLIC to refer to Jorge Bergolio as such almost defies belief. To do it in the Te igitur of the Canon of the Mass for the assent of the Faithful present, and, in fact, in front of the "familia"/Mystical Body of Christ, is truly a horrendous thought for a sedevacantist/someone who believes in conscience that Francis is a virulent species of apostate who to all outward appearances seems to be taking his orders directly from Hell. I don't think I could make myself clearer.
      3. We're singing from the same song sheet regarding the solution proposed by Bp. Guérard des Lauriers. You brought him up. I was only pointing out that the prime proponent of the Guerardian thesis - Bp. Sanborn - doesn't agree with your theories. I don't agree with the thesis, and neither does Fr. Cekada. However, the two clerics remain friends.
      4. Is the occult heretic's heresy a part of the Mass? No. Does it matter to you what other beliefs this secret heretic has swirling through his mind as he's saying Mass? Of course not, because you do not even know he has these thoughts, so how could you possibly be assenting to what you know nothing about? Juxtapose this with the Catholic who hears (knows) the (valid) priest utter an invalid consecration form for the wine, or the sedevacantist who knows that Francis is being mentioned by name as Pope of the Universal Church and placed into the company of all orthodox believers of your precious Faith - the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The point is, and always has been: It doesn't matter what's going through the priest's mind; what MATTERS is what he SAYS, and the fact that you - as a sede - know that in the case of Francis being mentioned as pope it's untrue yet, as part of the Mass, you assent to this at the "Amen" at the end of the prayers of the Canon. (By the way, liturgists consider that when the "Amen" is said during the liturgy it is to be equated to a (solemn) Act of Faith.)
      Just as an aside, do you honestly think that when Italian Catholics attended Mass in Venice in, say, 1955 they thought they were praying merely for the office of the pope, or do you think they thought they were specifically praying for a person, i.e., their much-loved Eugenio Pacelli, Pope Pius XII?
      In closing: I don't think I'm propounding Dogma; rather, giving an explanation as to one of the reasons why I'm avoiding una cum Masses, period. But I think you already knew that. :)

    9. Thank you for a courteous and thoughtful reply. Yes, we do agree (You, Dr. Lamb, and myself) and what you wrote, to wit:
      "...(a) Assistance or non-assistance at una cum Masses is a matter of conscience. (b) Souls cannot be bound regarding attendance at una cum Masses." That summarizes it well.

      1. I concede my analogy was not on point, and you have the better argument here.

      2. Here you are begging the question. The ordinary and obvious meaning of the words must be accepted. Why? Because the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words says so. Your speech is not be restricted, I'm pointing out the fact that the "ordinary meaning" has been used against us in the documents of Vatican I concerning the perpetual successors of St. Peter. It doesn't mean what you think it does at face value. You haven't cited one authority for your contention that it can't mean Francis as material placeholder--an extension of the OFFICE which is "orthodox and Catholic!"

      3. That's fine. We don't know the implications of sedeprivationism, and proponents of sedevacantism can hold friendships and unity with sedeprivationists. However, Fr. Cekada simply dismisses the argument on his own ipse dixit. How could he do other wise, since the theory came after the Great Apostasy, and you won't find any approved theologians or Vatican decrees on the topic.

      4. You're not assenting to Francis as pope if it is the office being invoked. (my #3 above). I agree it's about what the priest says and that's where we disagree. In 1955 they probably thought it was Pope Pius XII himself that was being mentioned, however, they probably thought that prayers for "the intentions of the pope" were Papa Pacelli's personal intentions when, in fact, they're for intentions innately bound up to the OFFICE (See theologian Davis, "Moral and Pastoral Theology" 3: 428-433.)

      I wish Fr Cekada was as civil as you.


    10. No problems, Introibo, likewise.
      Rather than discussing each point in every post every time, which makes for prolixity on my part, I thought from here on in it might be better to thrash out your objections/points one by one. So, commencing with "2" from your latest post.
      I fully understood your point, but I was cutting to the chase because we both know that Protestants often and inevitably lack the wisdom and ability to interpret the Bible, documents of Vatican I, certain, very complicated teachings on marriage (for example) found in Canon Law, etc. As far as the Bible is concerned, they do not have proper Bible Concordance, hence their problems multiply. We do on Bible matters, and on other COMPLICATED matters such as those listed above the Church speaks (or spoke) and we pay obeisance to Her decisions in thought, word and deed. Where is the comparison with the simple formula of the Te igitur prayer? It's a straightforward part of the Canon of the Mass with ancient origins of which its purpose the Church has made quite clear in antiquity.
      Introibo: 'You haven't cited one authority for your contention that it can't mean Francis as material placeholder--an extension of the OFFICE which is "orthodox and Catholic!"'
      Why is the onus on me to prove "it" (a negative)? The onus of proof rests with he who makes the assertion. And in this case it appears to me that what you're asserting is based on a big IF insofar the validity of a novel idea (Guerardianism) in which you use a principle thereof to propound a further novelty of the novelty which, incidentally, has no accord with the beliefs of the Guerardian-in-Chief (i.e., Bp. Sanborn) regarding how Francis is to be defined in the una cum clause. I may be misrepresenting you? If I am you have my unreserved apology, and my request to set me straight in these matters.
      Before I continue I'll need you to define the "it" in the following: "You haven't cited one authority for your contention that *it* can't mean Francis..."
      Moreover, I fear we're not on the same page. You have evidence that provision for the King of England (known to all as a Protestant) to be mentioned in the Te igitur is to be found in a missal in your possession, correct? That's fine --- he'd be mentioned (prayed for) for WHAT HE IS (the reigning monarch) and no one would deny it, AS opposed to Francis being mentioned for what we know him NOT TO BE. See the distinction? One would be the truth being testified to under oath (as described by Henri Daniel-Rops) and given assent by the faithful co-offering the Mass, and the other is perjury. I'm prosecuting this aspect only of the argument: the untruth which is inescapably assented to by the "Amen" at the end of the Canon which is likened to a profession of Faith. I look forward to your reply.

    11. Ok, how about "..prayers for the intentions of the pope." Sounds like we pray for the individual pope himself, but we are not as theologian Davis teaches. Furthermore, Fr Cekada himself in his "Grain of Incense" admits that the phrase una cum is open to no less than four (4) possible interpretations. If it were a "slam dunk" whereby theologians taught that it means you are offering the Mass in union with the actual person named in the Canon, he certainly would have cited the theological source. There would be no split of opinion among sedes regarding the una cum, but there is, so it is not simply manifest.

      If adding the name of Bergoglio makes you offering the Sacrifice WITH him, that would be the mortal sin of communicatio in sacris. Do you believe this is the case? If so both Fr Cekada and you have a duty to stay away from the priests of the CMRI (and other sede priests) who say attendance at such Masses are OK. Otherwise, you are counseling others to partake in false worship with heretics. Fr Cekada, to the best of my knowledge and belief, has not done so. Yet this is the logical consequence.

      Since there is no common consensus among sedes and no clear teaching from the Church regarding una cum, the burden of proof is on those asserting the necessity to stay away, that their interpretation is correct.

      Now if my contention is correct about the English monarch in the Canon of the Mass, that's a defeater for the anti-una cum. That means we can mention the heretic(s) and are obviously NOT offering WITH them because the Church Cannot give that which is evil! The mention of their names would be an offering FOR them--i.e. their conversion. So if they (English monarch and pope)are both being prayed for "for what they are" we are not offering Mass WITH them, and it must be permissible otherwise the Church defected. If the monarch was not mentioned in the Canon, it still does not prove that adding his name is sinful because it could be praying for the office, and liberty should prevail in matters such as these unless proven wrong. This has not been done.


    12. Part 1.
      Again, thank you for your reply.
      Introibo: 'Ok, how about "..prayers for the intentions of the pope." Sounds like we pray for the individual pope himself, but we are not as theologian Davis teaches.'
      What's the context? The Te igitur prayer? No. (Actually, in your example it doesn't sound like we pray for the individual Pope, because "pope" is not capitalized. Example: "It is the function of the governor (non-specified individual) to liase with federal authorities..." "Clarence Wheatley, the Governor (specified individual) contacted the federal authorities...") In one example the office of the governor is being talked about, and in the other the Governor himself is being talked about.
      "...together with Thy servant N..., our Pope, and N., our Bishop, and all orthodox believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith."

      Getting back to my case, to wit: my contention that in the Te igitur one is praying for a *specific person* named as reigning Pope, He possessing full authority and majesty as the Vicar of Christ on earth,
      and testified to by the celebrant AS being a "believer and professor of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith," and that this is given assent to by all the Faithful present by the utterance of "Amen" at the end of the prayers of the Canon of the Mass.

      Introibo: "You're not assenting to Francis as pope if it is the office being invoked." And "if" the moon is made of Havarti cheese it's edible. Unfortunately that's the value of "if" in this discussion.
      Introibo: 'You haven't cited one authority for your contention that it can't mean Francis as material placeholder--an extension of the OFFICE which is "orthodox and Catholic!"
      It only takes "theological reasoning" to make this implicit truth and conclusion explicit by applying the principles of logic to this specific case.
      An OFFICE can be orthodox and Catholic, sure. But an OFFICE, per se, is not capable of BELIEVING AND PROFESSING; it takes real, live people to do that. You know, like the ones mentioned in the Te igitur when priests said Mass in Baton Rouge in 1955.

    13. Part 2.

      "Part 3 .. Diptychs And Their Purpose
      Diptych (from the Greek 'twice folded') is the name given to a pair of tablets made of wood, ivory, bone or metal ... Liturgical diptychs, with which we are concerned here, date back at least to the third century ... During the Mass the priest-celebrant would read the names of those, both among the living and the dead, who were considered to be members of the Church and who were being commemorated during the Mass. The names of the living appeared on one of the leaves, and those of the dead on the other. The names were inscribed in wax that covered the inside surfaces and thus could easily be erased as occasions would demand. For example, the names of those who died in communion with the Church would be erased from the diptychs of the living and transferred to the diptychs of the dead. The names of those who fell into heresy, schism or apostasy or were excommunicated for other reasons would be erased. Similarly, new names could be added. For example, the name of a successor of a deceased pope or bishop would now be inscribed on the diptychs of the living. 'The diptychs of the living would include the names of the pope, bishops, and illustrious persons, both lay and ecclesiastical ... the liturgical diptychs admitted only the names of persons in communion with the Church; the names of heretics and of excommunicated members were never inserted.' (From the article titled 'Diptych' by R. Maere in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 23.) To remove a name from the diptychs 'was equivalent to excommunication or breaking communion.' (Attwater, op. cit., p. 148.) ... Although the diptychs made of wood or some other material are no longer in use, the diptychs are still recited during the Mass. In the west this happens during the Te igutur of the Canon." (From Sedevacantists And The "Una Cum" Problem, by Patrick Henry Omlor, Catholic Research Institute, P.O. Box 589, Veradale, WA 99037 USA)
      The above shows that people were transferred from the diptychs of the living to the diptychs of the dead to be prayed for. It is clearly shown that persons were being prayed for, not an office. An office can't commit apostasy, and thus be struck from the diptychs.
      The problem remains: When a sedevacantist attends an una cum Mass, he assents to an untruth, falsehood, lie - call it whatever you like - being uttered by the priest-celebrant in the Te igitur. The sedevacantist co-offerer KNOWS that Francis is a hideous apostate, the priests SAYS the words reckoning Francis among the "orthodox believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith," and the sedevacantist gives his assent at the "Amen" at the conclusion to the prayers of the Canon.

    14. 1. The use of a capital to denote an office is unpersuasive. If we said, "The president went to Europe " it means the office of president?

      2. Read what Vatican I wrote about the papacy, "If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema." Only an individual has successors not an office, right?
      Yet that is EXACTLY what was meant according to several theologians most notably Dorsch.

      3. The diptychs don't tell the whole story because: (a) we are dealing with a unique situation regarding a pope falling from office and we don't know if the office of St Peter was understood as fully as in the 1800s; (b) We don't know about the name of the English monarch in the Canon (c) we don't have a consensus on the issue from sedes. Fr Cekada is not even consistent by not denouncing sedes who don't denounce the Una Cum. Are they not telling people to sin greviously?

      There are too many problems for this to be solved without Magisterial authority. Hence, there must be freedom of conscience until such a time.


    15. Thank you for your reply.

      Introibo: "The use of a capital to denote an office is unpersuasive. If we said, "The president went to Europe " it means the office of president?", it doesn't. You got it exactly the wrong way round. The use capitals denotes the title of the person. Your son may be referred to as "Master," which is a title, not office. Your sentence should capitalize "president." One could write, "A president (referring in a general sense to someone hypothetically holding the office) rarely has a second chance to make a favorable impression, but this weekend the President (a specific person, i.e. Donald J. Trump) will get that opportunity." But seriously, Introibo, it's no big deal - we all know that the Te igitur refers to specific people holding offices, and that these specific people are specifically being referred to as "orthodox believers and professors of the Cathoic and Apostolic Faith."

      Introibo: "Only an individual has successors not an office, right?" Wrong. But you're conflating your big, suppositional, Guerardian-inspired "IF" with the perpetual Petrine succession and the una cum clause. You may think it's relevant, but you'd virtually (except for your cheer squad) be on your own. No offence intended

      P. Omlor, in Sedevacantists And The "Una Cum" Problem, devotes a section to the "Vital significance of the diptychs," and the Regula Fidei (Rule of Faith) of Pope St. Hormisdas which was mentioned several times during Vatican I as a witness to Papal Infallibility. The Formula of Hormisdas was given the value of a definition, and clearly teaches, among other things, that heretics, apostates, schismatic and people excommunicated for other reasons cannot be placed in the diptychs of the living or the dead. Dr. Lamb pointed you directly to De la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, v. II, p. 317, which confirms this time-honored teaching of the Church.
      Re: English Monarch. You concluded of Fr. Cekada's assessment, "That's fair." You'll have to take up any further discussion with him.
      Of course we don't have a consensus, what's new?
      Why should Fr. Cekada denounce sedes who don't denounce the una cum? Sorry, but that's absurd. Try to get your head around the fact that CMRI, Fr. Cekada, Bp. Dolan don't forbid people PRECISELY because they aren't in the businesss of binding consciences, neither am I. But I am, as they are, rendering opinions redolent of denunciation. People should read and pray and, then, let their conscience be their guide. (Having a "sensus Catholicus" and a properly formed conscience is another matter altogether, and worthy of a separate discussion.)
      Introibo: "There are too many problems for this to be solved without Magisterial authority. Hence, there must be freedom of conscience until such a time."
      That point has never been in dispute. I'm prosecuting a very simple case, to wit: The fact that there is an untruth, falsehood, lie - however you want to term it - being uttered in the very Canon of the Mass, which is assented to by sedevacantists when they attend una cum Masses. Falsehood, mixed messages and mental gymnastics have no place during Divine Worship, period.
      Have a good weekend!

    16. According to the "Chicago Manual of Style" 17th Edition, section 18, a title is only capitalized when part of a proper name. So President Trump is capitalized, while president by itself is lower case.

      You write, "But seriously, Introibo, it's no big deal - we all know that the Te igitur refers to specific people holding offices, and that these specific people are specifically being referred to as "orthodox believers and professors of the Cathoic and Apostolic Faith." Really? We "all know"? To quote from a famous 1980s Clint Eastwood movie, "Who be WE sucka?" Many sedes do NOT believe or "know" this--it's the informal fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

      Only an office has successors. The papacy does not "succeed itself" only the holders of the office do so. The time honored teaching of the Church allows the names of heretics to be inserted in the Canon. The 1917 Code of Canon Law allows allows for Mass to be offered privately for non-Catholics; even in the case of an excommunicate "vitandus" Mass may be offered privately (but only for his conversion). (See Canon 2262 and theologian O'Connell "The Celebration of Mass" 1:45)

      So the addition of names of heretics (and all outside the Church)in the Canon is not prohibited by Divine Law.

      If what you say about the TE IGITUR is true, and you don't condemn other sedes who believe the una cum is permissible, you're logically inconsistent. That Fr Cekada comes from the SSPX which is full of logical inconsistencies is no surprise. If a sede priest told his congregation it's OK to attend a Mass that lies and makes you consent to that lie, isn't he counseling you to do evil? How can you trust these priests in Confession to tell you what's correct? After all, if everyone "knows" that you mention these heretical individuals and are consenting to a lie, these clerics are very benighted and should be avoided. (I must say I don't have a "cheering squad"--just highly intelligent readers. Brilliant minds think alike!

      Finally, if you concede that no one can enforce their opinion, you basically accede to my position that it is a matter of conscience. So why do you care if anyone else accepts your opinion? Despite Fr Cekada's contention to the contrary, he is needlessly disturbing Traditionalist consciences.

      Finally, I think the opinion of an approved pre-Vatican II theologian who drew up the Apostolic Constitution"Munificentissimus Deus" has great weight. Much more than a devout layman from Australia.


    17. Introibo: 'Really? We "all know"? To quote from a famous 1980s Clint Eastwood movie, "Who be WE sucka?" Many sedes do NOT believe or "know" this--it's the informal fallacy of argumentum ad populum.'
      Yes, I've been arguing all along
      argumentum ad populum. Right! OBVIOUSLY "we all" don't believe or know - the lack of consensus, is the living proof. I was obviously being facetious, but, then again, just read the Te igitur, and, to use a different saying, "Don't let your lyin' eyes deceive you" as to the clear words on that page. :) Listen, I'm disappointed. You're seizing on the wrong stuff.
      What about your reply to this: "But you're conflating your big, suppositional, Guerardian-inspired "IF" with the perpetual Petrine succession and the una cum clause. You may think it's relevant, but you'd virtually (except for your cheer squad) be on your own. No offence intended." The Guerardian thesis is not an article of Faith, so it and all suppositional extensions may be dismissed at will if one so desires.
      Introibo's question: "Only an individual has successors not an office, right?"
      My answer: "Wrong." So why did you write: "Only an office has successors. The papacy does not "succeed itself" only the holders of the office do so," as if I disagreed?

      I'll address what's relevant here. What? "Condemn" sedes who "don't know or believe"? That'd be crazy. Your argument looks good on the surface, but it fails. Indulge me: A protestant doesn't know or believe that eating meat on a Friday is wrong. Why aren't you daily condemning them? Oh! It'd be absurd. It's not your function? I agree, exactly! But you could, if you got the opportunity, explain the Faith so in time they understand the TRUTH? Makes sense, because religious error can have far reaching ramifications on souls. I don't accede to your position, because posts and posts ago I made it crystal clear it's as much my position as it is yours and Dr. Lamb's.
      Introibo: 'Finally, I think that that the opinion of a pre-Vatican II theologian who drew up the Apostolic Constitution "Munificentissimus Deus" has great weight." Thank you for your opinion. Do you acknowledge that the thesis can be rejected out of hand? Or are you condemning my non-adherence? :) By the way, why did you bring up the bit about a devout layman from Australia?

      P.S. Remember to stick to the points.

    18. I always stick to the points, but I'll make it easy for you:

      1. You claim that the "plain meaning" of the Te Igitur supports what you say. Those who follow the "plain meaning" of Trent on baptism end up Fenneyites. They didn't understand it. The "plain meaning" of Vatican I doesn't support needing an actual pope at all times as V2 apologists claim. The "plain meaning" of prayers for the pope doesn't mean the individual pope. Yet you would have us accept the "plain meaning" of the Te Igitur when it's capable of no less than four interpretations. You don't even correctly understand the use of capital letters but I'm supposed to follow your construction of the prayers of the Canon. I'll pass, thank you.

      Sedeprivationism is not an article of Faith. Nor is your contention about the Canon. Both may be dismissed, or both accepted (or one and not the other). Yet, you would have me reject sedeprivationism as a viable objection.

      Traditionalists are not the same as material heretics. One commenter here claims attendance is a mortal sin, and Fr Cekada claims you can't even go to adoration of the Blessed Sacrament while an Una Cum is offered! If it's that serious and you have clerics telling people it's ok to go, you must avoid them because (a) they are counseling people to do what is wrong and (b) you can't trust their judgement.

      Guerard des Laurier is an approved pre-V2 theologian. As much as I respect Mr Omlor, his opinion holds the same weight as any other layman. Bp Guerad des Laurier holds up as an expert. Admittedly not Magisterial, but I'd follow the opinion of a doctor over someone who's dissected many frogs and enjoys reading medical books.

      You expect others to follow your opinion as definitive. It is not. I'll end by repeating one of my readers below:

      "Has anyone ever managed to find a quote from any pre-Vatican author who has said that a Catholic layman commits a mortal sin if he attends the Mass of a priest who says the name of an *uncondemned* heretic in the "Te igitur"? That would wrap this whole thing up for good. I'm not even asking for a citation from a Doctor of the Church -- I'd be happy with a book written by some lone parish priest in the countryside somewhere who managed to get an Imprimatur before 1960.

      Just one single quote stating this principle would be plenty. Please just make sure that it specifies this also applies in the case of an *uncondemned* heretic being mentioned in the "Te igitur".

      If this principle is so "obvious" then it shouldn't be hard to find one quote saying so in 2,000 years of Church history."


    19. Introibo: "You don't even correctly understand the use of capital letters but I'm supposed to follow your construction of the prayers of the Canon. I'll pass, thank you."
      Really, Introibo? So, you are rejecting the obvious - that people are named as "orthodox believers and professors" based on my supposed misundestanding of the use of capitals? Lol
      Please give me your opinion of the below. Please don't ignore this - your opinion is valued. (I'll be replying to the rest of your post in due course.)

      "You capitalize President because you are referring to President Obama or the President of the United States. You would say “The President is in town.”

      Langdon Elsbree and Frederick Bracher, Brief Handbook of Usage (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Company, 1968), 286, says, “When used without proper names, titles of officers of high rank should be capitalized; other titles should not.” One of the examples is, “The postmaster of our town appealed to the Postmaster General.” The Postmaster General used to be a head of a U.S. government department and a member of the President’s cabinet, whereas the manager of a local post office—its postmaster—might be the only person who worked there. The Postmaster General was subordinate to the president but still an “officer of high rank.”

      By any stretch of the imagination, in the U.S. the President of the United States is an “officer of high rank,” so by this rule his title would be capitalized whether it is followed by his name or not. “President Obama will visit our city next month.” “The President will visit our city next month.” That does not mean that the president of anything should be capitalized. I held the office of “president” in my community association of 309 homes but I would not have capitalized “president” in a sentence like, “The president chairs meetings of the association’s board of directors.”

      Under this rule, whether you capitalize “P/president” depends on how important you think that particular official is. I would capitalize “President” without a name when referring to the head of state of any country. I wouldn’t capitalize it when referring to the chief executive of a private corporation, even a very large one, but you might have to if you worked there. It’s probably “off topic” to give a list of other officials or “levels” of officialdom whose titles should be—or sometimes are—capitalized when not followed by their names."

    20. Simple. The rules change with the times. What might have been true in 1968 no longer holds. Notice I cite the 17th Edition of the Chicago Manual of Style-- 17 editions!


    21. And no I'm not rejecting it based on your grammar but rather how "the plain meaning rule" does not hold up. I provided numerous examples. This is a strawman argument. If you want to restrict liberty, you must prove your contention correct.


    22. Who made the Chicago Manual of Style the worlddwide end all and be all for all things grammatical? There are obviously different schools of thought on these matters. How do you know that what might have been true in 1968 no longer holds? Sounds like an ipse dixit to me... And by the way I'm not a Modernist. I'll follow Langdon Elsbree and Frederick Bracher, Brief Handbook of Usage (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Company, 1968.
      Actually, my work is done here. I've handled all of your objections - waded through all those muddied waters, as it were. You imagine you have valid objections. I don't. I see them, including the stuff you've thrown out this time round, as not being germane to the Te igitur prayer and my case, i.e. not true parallels. I have a simple case, and the best you had against it was a novelty of the Guerardian novelty. And no one is trying to restrict your belief in Guerardianism. Go for it, believe to your heart's content, UNIMPEDED! :)
      I'm ready, and more than happy, to let the jury/reader decide.

      So, peace out, Introibo! *drops the microphone*

    23. Before "Eminem" walks away, I will summarize my position:

      1. It is not contrary to Divine Law to pray liturgically for a heretic. The Church permitted it for the king of England, and he is also the Head of a false religious sect.

      2. The Canon is capable of no less than FOUR interpretations, one of which is Coordinating conjunction with Church, bishop, all true believers = and for Thy servant, the pope: "The priest and the Church offer the Mass for the servant of God and heretic/false pope Bergoglio." Praying for his conversion. He is not a declared heretic, and may be referred to as "servant of God" in the practical order. An abortionist is a murderer, not a healer, but until legally declared as such he keeps his title as doctor in the practical order.

      3. There is also sedeprivationism, which is a viable thesis from an approved theologian. In this case there would be praying for the OFFICE of pope.

      4. I have cited no less than three occasions when the "plain meaning" of a theological text is not correct. No evidence was offered to show that this "plain meaning" is correct in terms of the Canon.

      5. There is no on point theological/Magisterial text that disproves sedeprivationism, nor could there be since it was formulated after the Great Apostasy. There is likewise no such authoritative text for an undeclared heretic not being allowed in the Canon.

      6. In the practical order, you must shun sede priests who allow for their sede congregants to attend Una Cum. They would be counseling others to sin, and cannot be trusted in the confessional. Yet, the anti-una cum, while declaring Bergoglio's name in the Canon a lie, see nothing wrong with other clerics who also regard it as a lie from telling people it's perfectly fine to attend. They thereby knowing counsel others to do evil.

      7. The name of the king of England may have been used in the Canon.

      The Una Cum is not ideal. A sede Mass is always to be preferred. However, it is my opinion based on all the foregoing facts that one may attend the Mass of a valid priest, not in actual union with Bergoglio, and rejecting all errors of Vatican 2, who uses the Una Cum. As to capitalization, I guess I am a Modernist. Unlike Latin, a living language changes, e.g., "Gentleman" once meant simply a "landholder."

      As I was fraternally corrected by one of my readers about the use of sarcasm, I'll end this response like a modern "gentleman."


  4. Father Cekada was my first contact with sedevacantism. He most kindly answered my questions and eventually referred me to Fr. Francis Miller O.F.M. who has thrice visited us in Africa. Father Cekada has promised to say Requiem Mass for me on St. Gertrude's live webcast, when I die, so that my family around the world may participate. Thank you and God bless you Fr. Cekada for all you have done for me!

    For Introibo, I have the greatest respect and affection. He is an upstanding and outstanding Catholic layman, doing his very best to defend our Faith and courageously fighting the evil modernist apostasy. If only we had many more like him!

    It makes me very sad to see two such good men throwing sarcasm and animus at each other instead of discussing the theological question politely as brother sedes. Dear Introibo, it is neither seemly, nor acceptable to refer to a Catholic Bishop, His Excellency Bishop Dolan, as Father's "buddy"!
    The splitting of sedes into hostile groups is the greatest tragedy. I suppose it is a symptom of the Seat being vacant. We lack a Pope to settle theological disputes and in whom our unity is established.

    If I may cast a few points into the mix:
    1. ” … There are some men, in fact, whose names cannot even be mentioned by the celebrant in the “Commemoration of the Living”: “Hence were anyone to mention by name an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic, or an excommunicated person (whether a king, or a bishop, or any other), … he would certainly violate the law of the Church.” (De la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, v. II, p. 317). ”

    2. Whether one inserts bergoglio's name as pope materialiter, formaliter, (sedeprivationism), or no pope at all, (sedevacantism ), bergoglio remains an heretic and one is praying liturgically with an heretic. Catholics are forbidden to pray with heretics.

    3. ” … 95. We read in John (6,24): “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” But, since we believe that infants who have been baptized and who die before receiving the Eucharist are saved, how do we explain Christ’s words: “Except you eat . . . you shall not have life in you.”?
    96. This is answered as follows. By Baptism a person “is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church’s faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church’s intention, and, as a result, receive its reality.” (Summa Th., III, Q. 73, Art. 3, emphasis added).
    97. Therefore infants, though they do not receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, nevertheless receive the reality of the sacrament, namely, union with the Mystical Body.
    98. Similarly, one who with the right disposition, though he be unable to receive Holy Communion, makes a “spiritual communion,” thereby receives the reality of the sacrament, but not the sacrament itself.” (Quoted from Patrick H. Omlor.)
    For me, home alone, making Spiritual Communion, watching live webcast, or my DVD, is better than going to una cum.

    4. Some time ago, Introibo posted on the "intent" of the celebrant. If he confects the Sacrament the way the Church does it liturgically, his intent is presumed to be that of the Church, unless he states otherwise, or defects from the Catholic liturgy.
    A secretly sede SSPX Priest publicly recognizes bergoglio as Pope formaliter and offers The Blessed Sacrament in a SSPX church and the SSPX recognize bergoglio as such. Any pewsitter can only assume that he is inserting bergoglio's name una cum, unless this Priest states that he is not. Therefore this Priest is deceiving his congregation - not so? Is that not giving scandal?

    5. Introibo's again makes good points eg. 7 above. Once again my simple layman's opinion is that this is a theological question awaiting resolution.

    1. Dear Dr. Lamb,
      I agree with your fifth point wholeheartedly! I have great respect for you and the admittedly good work Fr. Cekada has done. However, I will never allow a cleric to hide behind his collar. If Fr thinks he can be boorish and not get it in return, he picked the wrong person. We must hold our clergy accountable. When I attended a V2 high school in the early 1980s, there was a Brother who told ribald jokes to 16 year olds that were so horrific, they would make an army sergeant blush. Even my own parents wouldn't complain (even though they thought it was horrible) because "Well, after all, he is a brother." All the more reason to call him out. One can only wonder what such a sick mind might have done (or perhaps did do).

      So, yes, I wish we could "agree to disagree agreeably" but it has to be mutual. I still wish Fr. Cekada well and I'm glad he's better. I thank him for all the good he has done. Anyone, cleric or layman, who can "dish it out" had better be prepared to take it.

      Unlike Fr Cekada, I recognize I could be wrong, and my opinion is binding on no one. If your conscience tells you not to attend Una Cum, you should not.

      Your points are good ones, and you may correct Dr Lamb. Here, is how I respond:

      1. The 1917 Code of Canon Law allows allows for Mass to be offered privately for non-Catholics; even in the case of an excommunicate "vitandus" Mass may be offered privately (but only for his conversion). (See Canon 2262 and theologian O'Connell "The Celebration of Mass" 1:45)

      2. That begs the question. Are we really praying WITH the heretic as such, OR THE OFFICE HE HOLDS MATERIALLY?

      3. I respect your decision not to attend the Una Cum, and there are spiritual benefits to an act of spiritual Communion.

      4. I always assume that the priest follows the rule of his Society, which is why I think it's important to ask the individual priest what he does. Some don't "tow the party line." However, the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc are not the Church, and there is no presumption of intention to conform to the rules of the Society, like there is in conforming to the Church Herself. I guess you could call it cowardly and dishonest, but not "scandalous" for refusing to hold to rules of a Society formed in time of necessity and has no formal standing in the absence of a pope.

      5. I agree wholeheartedly!

      Thank you, as always, for commenting Dr. Lamb--and thank you for the kind words.


    2. Introibo,

      I think you are letting your pride get to you when you say “Anyone, cleric or layman, who can "dish it out" had better be prepared to take it.” as if that is an excuse to resort to the types of sarcasm and insults you have. I would agree that Father Cekada has the same fault and this I think is what causes his own level of sarcasm and insults which seemed to have triggered the response from you. I don’t disagree that one should be able to respond in 100% disagreement and lay out their arguments, even against a priest, bishop, etc, BUT it should ideally be done without returning the unnecessary insults. (I know as a human fault this can be hard and am not claiming I don’t also have the same weakness)

      I would like to point out a couple of things that you claimed regarding Father Cekeda that are incorrect or overblown.

      1. You state that Father Cekada pushes his view as a "mandatory belief". I would say based on the conclusion of his paper on this it says otherwise, “In light of the teachings of popes, theologians, can-onists, moralists, and liturgists on the issues we have examined, the foregoing conclusion, in my opinion, is the only one possible.“ He says it is in his opinion.

      2. The fact that Father Cekada does not have any problem with people attending CMRI, SSPV (even though they make their parishioners sign a paper not allowing them to attend SGG), and the other churches that you argued would be a sin by counsel would point to the fact that while it is his strongest deepest opinion and personal belief he does not bind others to it.

      3. Many of SGG’s parishioners openly also attend SSPX and other locations. They are not shunned, kicked out, scolded, reprimanded or anything from Father Cekada.
      I believe these points show that as a matter of practice Father Cekada treats this as a matter of personal conscience even though I believe he personally believes it to be binding under pain of mortal sin if one agrees with his theological conclusion.

      I was initially drawn to your blog because you seemed to be one that would keep sarcasm and other things out and just make your theological arguments. Be the stronger one, get back on the high road, stick to the arguments and arguments alone and I think it will force those that agree or oppose your view to also stick to the arguments. If each “side” keeps “dishing it out” with ad hominem attacks things will only end up in a bad place for everybody. The devil would love to see all arguments end in the gutter.

      If you stick to arguments and others don’t you will be seen by reasonable readers as the more reasonable. I have the greatest respect for Father Cekada, but am very disappointed he often uses lots of sarcasm in his writing. That said, while I feel that this is a fault of his and I don’t condone or support it, I also look to the many great and charitable things I have seen personally or heard 2nd hand from others directly affected over the past several decades by Father Cekada. People tend to get stuck in an ALL or NOTHING mentality about everything, but this is almost never reality.

    3. Well stated. I stand fraternally corrected. I should not stoop to the level of Fr Cekada. I do give him credit where it is due, but if what you said about SGG and Fr is true, I have overblown things in that area.

      I can get angry (it's a fault that I work on more diligently) and you make good sense. I try to just state the arguments without insults or sarcasm and I fell far short of my ideal this week.

      Your point is well taken. I thank you for the charitable correction and I will strive to always maintain intellectual rigor within Christian charity.

      Mea culpa!


    4. When you consider that Dolan has been referred to as far, far, far worse than a mere "buddy" of Cekada's---and, all by Traditionalists, ---my only advice to you would be to Lighten Up!

  5. Once again,this proves all Traditional Bishop's (including Bishop Bawden) need to hold an imperfect council & elect a Pope!

    1. May the day when we can elect a true pope be hastened!


  6. It's amazing how Fr.Cekada & his Bishops (Dolan & Sanborn) tell Catholics they're committing mortal sin by assisting at
    Una Cum Mass centers.
    They are not the Pope nor do they have a mission or office from the Church.
    BISHOP Robert Dymek,God rest his soul,would always stress he was an emergency priest and would act as an emergency Bishop on certain days such as Holy Thursday, confirmations,and the rare ordination or the even more rare Consecration of a Bishop.
    I respectfully disagree with these clerics.
    Fr.Cekada and his Bishops should committ to keeping the true Catholic faith alive during this emergency and leave these topics alone.All this does is divide the fractured Traditional Catholic groups even more.
    We need all Bishop's to hold an imperfect council and elect a Pope.
    I hope they include Bishop David Bawden.

    1. Why us it amazing? Is it against the 'true Catholic faith' to denounce pretenders to the Papal throne? If not, is it with the true Catholic faith, to, at Holy Mass, assist in union with pretenders?

    2. Fact is, una cum folks (those who have full knowledge of the facts of VII and its heresiarchs) won't convert. It is easy to understand why.

      Fact is, the non-conversion simply strengthens falsehood and its adherents and increases the crosses for the adherents of truth. But it is the great apostasy and adherents of truth must accept this.

    3. Re-read my comment,they don't have an office or mission from the Church!
      They're Emergency clerics keeping the true Faith alive during a crisis.
      Also,they don't say anything about Pius XII being a human wrecking ball from 1951-1958.
      Every claimant to the chair of St.Peter after Pius XII is "bad" because they changed Traditions.
      PIUS XII changed the oldest most venerable Traditions in the church but he gets a pass.
      Bp.Dymek was the only priest I ever met who encouraged the after Midnight Holy Commnion fast and was honest about being an emergency priest/bishop with no office or mission from the Church.
      The only result from this Una Cum issue is more division and fracturing in the divided Traditional Catholic Church.
      I wish they would stop trying to be Pope and unite with all Traditional Catholics.
      Pride is a great sin for the devil to tempt people.

    4. Pius XII should not have messed up the things he did, but none of the changes he introduced involved a denial of the essentials of the Faith, as we do see with:

      the new mass,
      new sacraments,
      new doctrine,
      new canon law,
      new constitution of the heirarchy,
      new definition of the Church,
      new ecumenism,
      and new newness.

    5. Those changes wouldn't have been possible if Pius XII didn't violate the Council of Trent numerous times and introduce "new changes" to some the oldest Traditions in the Roman Rite.
      I don't hate Pius XII but we need to be honest if we are going to restore the True Church.

  7. "Unlike Fr Cekada, I recognize I could be wrong."

    Whoever you are then, you are wrong. Recognise it?

    Would you recognise the Fr. Cekada is one of the most foremost experts on scandalous and illicit Masses?

    1. Catholics do not latch on to one person, put them on a pedestal, and follow them around, excluding all others. It always ends badly, and St Paul condemns it.

    2. FR. Cekada is "One of the most foremost (sic) experts on scandalous and illicit Masses." Really? Who decided THAT one? The Modernist Vatican's "Congregation for Silly Liturgy"?(next door to the "Congregation for Hiding Perverts" no doubt.


  8. A soul seeks the True faith. God grants grace that they should have what they seek. This involves rejecting the false church. A blogger says, in these times, even though with one tongue we say, false pope, with the other tongue we worship in union with falsehood.

    1. Please re-read what I wrote. It's not false if it's the OFFICE of the papacy.


  9. Dear Introibo, do you have any posts regarding the validity (or invalidity) of the new rites of Orders?

    My position is that grave changes were made by Paul VI -
    which contradict prior teaching and practice - and therefore the entire situation is gravely doubtful. So I stay away, and go to the SSPX.

    But you and others say they are outright invalid. How do you go from leaving the issue aside as "gravely doubtful" to saying "invalid" with confidence?

    Could you link to some good material please?

    Thanks and God bless you, Mike

    1. Dear Mike,
      You are correct to stay away from any cleric "ordained" in the new rite, or in the Traditional Rite by a "bishop" "consecrated" in the new rite.

      My reason for going against it so strongly is the serious defect in form. Pope Pius XII definitively decided the matter and form of the Sacrament of Orders in 1947 with "Sacramentum Ordinis." Many theologians consider it infallible, and all hold it to be definitive on the subject.

      Why anyone would change the exact words declared necessary and sufficient by Pope Pius XII is just evil. That aside, Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican Orders invalid in "Apostolicae Curae" in 1896 (many theologians also consider this infallible). Pope Leo made it clear that in the Sacrament of Holy Orders two things are indispensable, (1) the grade (deacon, priest, bishop) must be unambiguously stated and (2) the grace of the Holy Ghost must be invoked.

      The office of bishop is NOT unambiguously expressed. "The governing Spirit" is mentioned which has never been used to mean the episcopal grade of order.

      There is something inherently missing in the form. Imagine a priest reciting "FOR THIS IS MY" and never says BODY. Such a defect is invalidating. While I have no authority to officially pronounce it such, it is invalid in the practical order.

      To give credit where it is due, see Fr. Cekada's artcle, "Why the New Bishops are not True Bishops" available at

      God bless,

    2. Correction: Pope Pius XII speaks as to the requirement for the form. Pope Leo XIII had the same basic principles in declaring Anglican orders null and void.


    3. Dear Mike,

      If you are interested in the issue of New Rite of Holy Orders, you can scroll down in the linked article, and you will see several articles written by Father Cekada and Father Jenkins.

      For me, I would say I have a grave doubt about the New Rite of Holy Orders. And even more (or most) simply, I will always ask myself: If the new "Mass", new Catechism, and New Canon Law are all wrong/heretical/problematic/bad, then why should not I have doubt about the new Holy Orders?

      By applying simple logic as well as reading Dogmatic Theology and Moral Theology treatises and manuals, I think the new Holy Orders are very likely to be invalid. I do not say it is invalid, since I neither am a Theologian nor have magisterial authority, but I will stay away with those "Priests" or "Bishops".

      God bless you,

      G. P. R. W.

  10. Pope Leo also talked about the manifest defect of intention that the surrounding ceremonial rite causes in the minister, due to its suppression of Catholic doctrine regarding the Priesthood.

    He said that even if the Anglican form for Orders was considered valid by the Church, the intention to do what the Church does is not made manifest, due to the defective rite, and their ordinations are invalid.

    It appears that the same reasoning could be applied to the new mass.

    Putting the problems with the consecration of the chalice aside, the new ceremonies of the novus ordo, by their deliberate elimination of any clear mention of a propitiatory sacrifice being offered (especially since the offertory has been deleted) also cause the minister to manifest a defect of intention.

    But I'm just too scared to pronounce these to be flat out invalid, just in case the heretics fluked it. So I remain in practice the same as you, but not as insistant that it is definitely valid or invalid.

    But since the Church cannot produce even a doubtful sacrament, these new things in no way can be said to have issued from the Catholic Church, so there's no reason to inherently trust them.

    If I'm wrong in my summary of Apostolicae Curae, I'm happy to be corrected by yourself or one of the readers.

    1. There are good reasons to doubt the intention of the minister of the Sacrament in the Novus Bogus "mass." (Even if the priest was valid) The fact that the form (Words of Consecration) are spoken as a type of "Institution Narrative," according to theologian O'Connell and others, it shows a lack of an intent to confect the sacrament "here and now" --it's just a recitation of history much like Lutheran services. Add to this invalid ordinations, corrupted forms, and invalid matter (bread with honey added, etc)--and you need to RUN away my friend! I'll pray for your conversion to the Traditionalist Catholic Church!


    2. Hi Introibo, I used to post here as "Mike" for a while but am using a different browser, and I havent got all my profiles happening.

      I already hold the sede position and go to the SSPX for certainty regarding the Mass and the Sacraments for inward graces, as well as simply to keep outwardly practicing the Faith for my family and myself.

      I abandoned the FSSP the moment the lights went on regarding the new rites of Orders. These things take time!

      My point about Apostolicae Curae is that we don't need to guess at the internal intention. That's the mind of the Church. Leo XIII says that if the ceremonial rite surrounding the form and matter expresses the Faith, then the minister is presumed by that very fact to intend to do what the Church does.

      If the rite doesn't express what the Church believes, then the minister is presumed to NOT have the proper intention, regardless of what intention he has in his mind.

      If a Priest leaves the SSPX, still believes everything the Church teaches regarding the Mass, but uses the novus bogus, then he cannot be said to intend to do what the Church does, and the sacrament must be regarded as invalid.

    3. I agree Mike! Good to hear from you--I can abandon prayers for your conversion as you are already among the Faithful!


  11. Hello Introibo,

    I thought you were part of Father Cekada's group in Ohio but I just learned otherwise. So, could you tell me who your bishop is? Thank you.

    1. As a Traditionalist we do not "have bishops" as before the Great Apostasy. There are no bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction to whom we must submit. We have "sacramental bishops" so to speak. As I often attend the SSPV, I would consider Bishop Clarence Kelly and Bishop Joseph Santay as the bishops I would most likely approach for episcopal necessities.


    2. I often have this conversation with other trads. The SSPX may be organized in the manner as an order of the Church, but as you correctly say, they have no jurisdiction and thus no right to any obedience from their priests. Other than Tradition, we have no one at all with any authority to teach us. We can learn from other traditionally minded clerics, but none of them can bind us. Only Tradition binds us.

    3. Tom A always nails the issue. Here and other places where he comments!

  12. Good old common sense tells us that if the SSPX rejects sedevacantism then we must reject the SSPX. Period.

    1. I agree. The issue is not sedevacantism, but "can a sede attend the Mass of a valid Catholic priest who rejects the errors of V2 and its phony popes, is not in actual union with Bergoglio, yet uses his name in the Canon?"

      I believe it is an option when there is no sedevacantist Mass available.


  13. If you take suggestions on articles,could you consider an entry on the Duarte Costa line?

    1. It shall be considered, my friend! I have a long "to do list" but I will try and get to it!


  14. The whole big point has already been pointed out: Fr. Cekada expresses his firm conviction on this matter which is that it is a mortal sin for a sedevacantist to attend an una cum mass.

    This, in fact, is a common opinion among sedevacantist clergy in Europe and is unanimously held by all those who adhere to the Cassiciacum thesis. Bp Guerard des Lauriers himself spoke very often about the external profession of the faith that should necessarily flow from the true faith professed internally. Attending an una cum mass goes against this profession of faith. It is at least scandalous, I am not sure if he or any other clergy adhering to the thesis called it a mortal sin but I wouldn't be surprised if some did.

    Moreover, just because there is confusion here, as usual when the Cassiciacum thesis is invoked by those who don't understand it, let me add that the "pope" materialiter is formally not the pope, so there is no question of mentioning his name in the canon, nor praying for him at any occasion where the pope is normally to be prayed for (at benediction, for example).

    This is the crucial point: papa materialiter is not the pope. Only materially is he "pope" and, in my opinion, it is always better to put this title in parentheses when writing about this subject in modern languages. One who writes and reads latin in our "traditionalist" orbin usually also has at least the basics of Thomistic philosophy so he also understands what the word materialiter means. Writing "material pope" or "the pope materially" (which is more proper than the first) does create confusion in those who don't understand the thesis or don't want to understand it (which is more often the case, my experience tells me).

    And, last but not least, there is no such thing as "sedeprivationism". It is a funny neologism that doesn't mean anything real. For it can mean, theoretically, two things:

    i. The privation of the See, which is impossible. The See of Peter may be empty, or occupied materially, but it will always exist as the See of the Pope until the end of times.

    ii. The See is deprived of its valid occupant, the Pope. But in this case we are talking about something that is traditionally called sedevacantism, the See being empty. So here the term "sedeprivationism" is simply useless.

    Privatio is the lack of a due perfection or form. It's one of the basic three notions of Aristotelian cosmology, the other two being matter and form. As such it is used analogically elsewhere. According to the Cassiciacum thesis the privation affects the "pope-elect". What is normally due at the end of the election process terminating with the acceptance of the "pope elect", i.e. Christ's authority, is lacking due to the obstacle (obex) put there by the "pope elect".

    The obstacle is not exactly personal heresy (which needs to be proven in order to be binding in the Church and FOR the Church) but the externally expressed intention not to pursue the common good of the Church.

    This lack of intention is expressed daily in word, deed and omission by the occupants of the Holy See starting from Paul VI and most probably also John XXIII.

    Let me finish there as the comment got longer than what I intended.

    1. So you have privileged access to the actual writings on this particular subject by Bp. Guerard des Laurier? It is "unanimously held" by sedeprivationists? Who conducted the professional survey?

      See my post "Sedeprivationism." The man HOLDS THE POTENTIAL OF BECOMING POPE and ipso facto has a valid claim to ascend to the office upon the removal of the obex. The seat is deprived of an occupant WITH AUTHORITY.


  15. Has anyone ever managed to find a quote from any pre-Vatican author who has said that a Catholic layman commits a mortal sin if he attends the Mass of a priest who says the name of an *uncondemned* heretic in the "Te igitur"? That would wrap this whole thing up for good. I'm not even asking for a citation from a Doctor of the Church -- I'd be happy with a book written by some lone parish priest in the countryside somewhere who managed to get an Imprimatur before 1960.

    Just one single quote stating this principle would be plenty. Please just make sure that it specifies this also applies in the case of an *uncondemned* heretic being mentioned in the "Te igitur".

    If this principle is so "obvious" then it shouldn't be hard to find one quote saying so in 2,000 years of Church history.

    1. Well said! If one existed, Fr Cekada would have used it.


    2. Has anyone ever managed to find a quote from any pre-Vatican author who has said that a Catholic layman is free to co-offer the Mass of a priest who says the name of a person as Pope in the Te igitur --- a person who the layman has in conscience staked his very salvation on not being the pope but in fact a hideous heretic and apostate and therefore no pope at all -- declaring him to be a "believer and professor of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith," the falsehood to which the layman assents to at the "Amen" at the end of the Canon? That would wrap this whole thing up for good. I'm not even asking for a citation from a Doctor of the Church -- I'd be happy with a book written by some lone parish priest in the countryside somewhere who managed to get an Imprimatur before 1960.
      Just one single quote stating this principle would be plenty. Please just make sure that it specifies that it's ok to assent to falsehoods during the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries.

      If this principle is so "obvious" then it shouldn't be hard to find one quote saying so in 2,000 years of Church history.

      Oh! And if you can't find one, don't worry - there is such as thing as it never being imagined we'd be in this unique position. I wonder if the lawgiver would have wished his law to be interpreted in such a way as to allow the likes of Francis to be mentioned in the Te igitur, and given assent to by Catholics as an orthodox believer and professor of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith?

    3. You bolster the position, albeit unwittingly. In all the theological commentaries on the Canon, the issue never arises. Therefore, there should be liberty of action where the Church has not officially pronounced.


  16. Introibo - it seems that we are never going to agree on this. I bolster zero. There is never liberty when it comes to assenting to untruths. The Church *has* officially pronounced on all species of lying.
    I'm going to answer your other reply, and while I'm at it I'll show you some information on that pesky capitalization issue. :)

  17. Here is Father Cekada's response to the above article:

    "But even after the publication of the first version of this post on September 20, 2017, our blogger [Introibo] still did not learn his lesson.

    So, in a September 25 post, he went on a 1500-word tear against me based entirely on the assumption that the Prayer for the (Protestant) King permitted at Benediction in Canada took place during an “official liturgical service,” thus making (he assures us) an excellent analogical argument for tolerating the naming of a heretic/imposter as Vicar of Christ in the Canon of the Mass.

    But all this windbaggery instantly collapses once you learn that, unlike the Mass, Benediction is not considered a true liturgical service.

    Pfft. Strike three. And down goes yet another ignorantly made and pompously phrased objection.

    And so here we are, ten years after my original article, and despite all the squawking, no one has yet been able to make a credible and coherent case against my arguments."

    - extracted from:

    1. I responded in an Addendum to this post, right above the comments.


  18. It seems very inappropriate, and even desperate, to deviate from the topic to include Schiavo, plus ad hominems against Fr Cekada in order to try to bolster the case for attendance at una cum Masses.

    1. Fr Cekada wants to paint everyone who disagrees with him as benighted. That's inappropriate for a cleric, and he personally attacked me. One of my readers pointed out that I shouldn't give him a taste of his own medicine as I did, and I agree.

      The Schiavo case is not ad hominem. It shows that his judgement is not only fallible, but that he speaks without knowing all the facts. Even then, when facts are supplied by a competent authority, he digs his heels in. Ditto for Una Cum and any other issue. Unfortunately, he's become a "follow me or die" cleric in many ways.


    2. In one of his articles,Fr.Cekada says our Traditional chapel is associated with the Knights of St.John of Jerusalem.(or something similar I can't recall the name)
      This particular chapel hasn't been associated with that group since 2009.(I didn't start attending until 2014)
      I wrote to him long ago about this yet he still has it in his article.
      Why he won't correct this is beyond me?

    3. He’ll never admit to being wrong.

      — Introibo

  19. I totally agree with the other anonymous writer that you are using ad hominem against a good priest. Shiavo and the US constitution? Please. The priest challenged your positions and because you are yet another lawyer who moonlights as a theologian your pride was injured. I read Father C's article and I believe he wins the debate hands down.

    1. No, Cekada challenged mine, and I don’t mind but he and civility haven’t been on speaking terms for some time now. I believe You are entitled to your opinion. Fr C believes you’re entitled to his and no other. I’m not a theologian nor is Fr Cekada.

      — Introibo

    2. Yeah, like Cekada is a paragon of humility. Please...we all know otherwise.

  20. At least Intro doesn't read medical books and dissect frogs. He prefers to take the scalpel to Fr Cekada, but he does himself no favors because by doing so he atacks a cleric who is highly regarded by a plethora of sedes on all continents. And IMO Fr C won the argument hands down long ago.

    1. I put out the arguments and let my readers decide for themselves. We must make our Catholic way the best we can in the Great Apostasy. I’m here to get people thinking and to inform (sometimes warn), but not to win arguments. I do that for a living!

      — Introibo

    2. "who is highly regarded by a plethora of sedes on all continents?" SSPV???

  21. You must be very passionate about your job! It seems at times that this passion is bleeding into your hobby, resulting in a snarky and insulting tone in some of your messages to others; it looks like you are desperate to win, but this is not a courtroom and your contributors here are not 'hostile witnesses' on the stand. One more thing. Please, for your own sanctification, always be sure not to be seen to be insulting Fr. Cekada (or any of the clergy for that matter), even if he irritates you by being dismissive or whatever. He is an alter Christus. He is not a mere lay peer. And, spare a thought for the fact that he's been carrying an extra heavy cross lately due to recent, serious illness. Disagree with him, and vehemently, by all means, but remember that his hands are used for other than 'dissecting frogs'. I, too, think that Fr. Cekada's arguments regarding the una cum are unassailable.

    1. I am very passionate about my job as people’s futures depend on me. St Thomas More, Ora pro nobis!

      Now, let’s get something clear; I’m not “out to win” as I stated above. I have my view. I put out the arguments. It’s my opinion shared by the CMRI and SSPV. You can think otherwise. Follow your conscience.

      I pray for Father Cekada and I prayed for his complete recovery. I’m very happy he beat the illness and I hope he has many long and healthy years ahead of him. I acknowledge all the good he has done.

      A priest is indeed an alter Christus, however, I will never go back to the “cleric can do no wrong” mentality that led up to the Great Apostasy.

      I attended a V2 sect high school in the early 1980s. I became a Traditionalist in my junior year. There were two brothers and a priest who taught with laity. They were perverse. One brother in particular told ribald jokes I couldn’t repeat to a sailor— and he was telling 16 year olds this “humor.” God knows how many souls (bodies?) this creep destroyed. No one (including my parents—God test their souls) complained because “he’s a brother after all.”

      All the more reason to hold his feet to the fire. No one will hide behind a Roman collar from me. I should be respectful to all, but no one gets a “free pass.” Not on Schiavo, not on behaving in a manner unbefitting the priesthood. We all need to hold the clergy accountable.

      — Introibo

  22. Sir, it is distressing to hear that you had to bear the perversity of those you mentioned. However, Fr. Cekada's purported offenses against you do not compare in the slightest. Ask yourself what your motivation was to bring Terri Schiavo into your una cum argument against Fr. Cekada? I'd surmise - and I'd strongly wager others would too - that Fr. Cekada's involvement in the Terri Schiavo case was 'weaponized' to discredit him, and as a result bolster your case (in your mind). Or is it that you get angry, causing you to grasp at Fr's 'deficiencies' in order to discredit him? To win? Pulling out the Schiavo card looked like an act of desperation - one which the boors on Pistrina Liturgica and The Lay Pulpit are wont to do as often as they can contrive segues to achieve this end.
    No one has suggested you give anyone a free pass? I suggested that you strongly argue your case, but be respectful even though you think you have been treated harshly. Or is my advice, which is to essentially 'turn the other cheek' sound like heterodoxy to you?

    1. OK
      1. My motivation to discuss Terri Schiavo was to show that Father Cekada refuses to retract positions even when shown to be wrong by the manifest weight of the credible evidence. He accused me of not "being able to make basic distinctions," yet in a matter of life and death , doesn't understand the basic distinctions of ordinary and extraordinary life support. He even goes so far as to challenge a top neurologist's assessment in favor of his own "common sense." His judgement was bad for the body, so you might want to think twice before throwing your hat in with someone regarding matters of the soul.

      2. I have defended both Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada publicly here against Pistrina Liturgica and the Lay Pulpit no less than three times. I did it because (a) I believe Fr Cekada was correct regarding a one-handed ordination being valid, and (b) Bp. Dolan was calumniated. They could not produce the name of even ONE witness to the so-called "one-handed ordination." They all had "personal reasons" for not revealing their identity.

      3. Turn the other cheek, is certainly good advice.I will try to do it as much as I can. Yet, bringing up his inability to admit being wrong, even in such an important case, is not "failure to turn the other cheek."


  23. Introibo,
    I was searching for articles on the CMRI and came across this article. The CMRI are going to be locating to Baltimore in the near future. I learned this from a CMRI Priest recently.
    Shortly after I found the Church a few years ago, I posed a question to Fr. Cekada regarding confession and if it was ok to go to a pre-Vatican II Novus Ordo Priest. He said yes. I found an old pre-Vatican II Priest and went to confession. I was searching where to go to Mass and called the CMRI and they connected me to one of their Priests who was saying Mass in a town in Pennsylvania, not too far from Baltimore. I told the Priest, over the phone, about going to confession with the pre-Vatican II Novus Ordo Priest and he told me I had to redo my confession. He then told me to go to his Mass in Pa and he would have me confess out in the open in the front of Church at the altar and place some kind of a robe over me. Needless to say, I never did attend his Mass. However, I get correspondence from this Priest about once a month and he is saying that he is going to be having Mass in Baltimore in the near future. I am leery of the CMRI due to the Schuckart mess and also leery of this young Priest. Regarding my confession, I did confess again to a pre-Vatican II Priest who was 90 yrs old and said an Indult in Baltimore. I decided I couldn’t be running all over the place reconfessing to different Priests, as I would drive myself crazy. Fr. Cekada speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He told me I could go to a Pre-Vatican II Novus Ordo Priest, but then carries on like crazy over the Una Cum. Go figure. I was new, without guidance and trying my best to find my way regarding confession. I am sure God understands if man doesn’t!! (I do know that both Priests I went to for confession were valid Priests)!

    1. Joann,
      Interesting! At least the priests were valid, and Fr Cekada’s reasoning is way off on Una Cum and use of V2 priests—his positions, as you pointed out—are logically and mutually exclusive!

      God Bless,


    2. Introibo,
      A couple questions regarding my above comment.
      1. If, I understand correctly, a Priest can be in mortal sin and his Sacraments are still valid. Is this correct?
      2. If a pre-Vatican II ordained Priest, even though in the Novus Ordo or Indult, gives absolution, I don’t see how it cannot be a valid Sacrament. If a valid Priest’s Sacraments are ok even if he is mortal sin, why not a valid Priest’s absolution, even though NO or Indult?
      3. The CMRI Priest who wanted me to attend his Mass in Pa and redo my confession in the front of Church at the altar and place some kind of a robe on me - do you know what on earth that was all about?? I never heard of such in the Roman Rite.
      Thanks much!! (Hope I am not monopolizing your time with too many questions)?

    3. Joann,
      Always a pleasure to answer your questions!

      1. You are correct

      2. You are correct but one word of caution. The Vatican II sect is not the Roman Catholic Church. Just like the Eastern Schismatics an elderly V2 sect priest can validly absolve from sin as long as he uses the correct form. However, also like the Eastern Schismatics we cannot go to them outside the danger of death. In your case you didn’t know so no harm or sin. Sometimes V2 priests use an invalidating form such as “May God Have mercy on your sins.”

      3. I have no idea what that CMRI priest was doing. If he cannot explain himself he should be reported to Bp. Pivarunas.

      God Bless,


    4. Introibo - Thanks much for the clarification. I have been trying to figure out why Fr. Cekada told me it was ok to go to a pre-Vatican II Novus Ordo Priest for confession as he is so anti-Una Cum. I know now that he is very convoluted, but didn’t know that then. At the time, I just took his word and it never crossed my mind to inquire any further. Both Priests I went to used the proper absolution. My experience with these 2 older Pre-Vatican II Priests were as I remember from going to confession when I was young. I even received proper penances, not the “go sit in the pew and let God love you” that I had gotten from young NO “Priests” in the 1980’s.
      As for the CMRI, I am staying far away? (Sometime I will fill you in privately on the whole conversation that I had with the CMRI Priest, but I don’t feel comfortable doing so in an open forum).
      Thanks again!!

    5. Always glad to help, Joann!