Monday, July 30, 2018

Una Cum: A Real Theologian Weighs In


To my readers:
Last July, I published a post entitled Una Cum, which dealt with the huge controversy regarding Traditional Masses, offered by valid Traditionalist priests who are not in union with Bergoglio, but nevertheless name him in the Canon of the Mass. It is my opinion that they are lawful to attend if no sedevacantist Mass is available. My post may be read here: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/07/una-cum.html. 

Fr. Cekada, who tells people that they cannot attend such Una Cum Masses under pain of mortal sin excoriated me, See: http://www.fathercekada.com/2017/09/20/some-questions-on-una-cum-masses/. He also addressed my rebuttal to him in my September 25th post (which is linked in the article I just cited). The Una Cum is so horrible (he assures us):


  • It's wrong to make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament while such a Mass is being offered
  • You can't receive Holy Viaticum  if it were consecrated during such a Mass
  • It's OK to go to Confession where an Una Cum Mass is offered, provided it would not create a scandal

Just as his whole line of argumentation about the Pain Holy Week Rites is wrong, this error is so egregious it defies belief. He is creating a huge problem by troubling the consciences of the Faithful to the point that they are told that they must forego Viaticum on their deathbed if an SSPX priest consecrated It at an Una Cum Mass!  Here we have more pontificating on an issue by someone without Magisterial authority on a disputed point of theology. Since I dealt with defending Pope Pius XII and his Holy Week Rites last week, I'll tackle Una Cum by using a real approved theologian. 

Fr. Cekada ends his brief tirade against me and Una Cum by assuring his readers, "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." 

I have often stated that I'm not a theologian, or a canonist (as was my spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD) and that my opinion is not binding on anyone. I have no Magisterial authority, and people who feel they cannot attend a so-called Una Cum Francisco Mass under any condition, should follow their conscience. Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan, on the other hand, would like us to think  they are theologians and canonists (they are neither), and they pontificate on what constitutes mortal sin on disputed issues when they have no more Magisterial authority than do I. They forget the dictum of St. Augustine, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada turn a non-essential into an essential, and they often lack charity, when clerics should lead the way. I think Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan have done much good, but they must be called out when they are wrong. 

Thanks to one of my readers, I will publish below this little gem, written by a real pre-Vatican II theologian who addresses the "Una Cum" issue: Fr. Martin Stepanich, OFM, STD. Fr. Stepanich was born in Kansas in 1915. Baptized "Francis," he was to become a "son" of St. Francis on September 2, 1934 and was ordained a Franciscan priest in 1941. He obtained his doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD) pre-Vatican II and was a seminary professor. Fr. Stepanich was an open sedevacantist. He left this world on November 18, 2012. Here is what a real theologian has to say on this issue! It is longer than my usual posts, but quite good and necessary to allay consciences needlessly disturbed. At the end, I add the pertinent part of a letter Fr. Stepanich addressed to Bishop Dolan on September 30, 2008. To the best of my knowledge and belief, there has been no response from Bishop Dolan or Fr. Cekada. Fr. Cekada called his first article against the Una Cum, "The Grain of Incense" available to read online here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/SedesUnCum.pdf  After reading what theologian Stepanich has to say, we may all want to take what Fr. Cekada writes with a Grain of Salt.---Introibo.

Attendance at “Una Cum Benedicto”
Tridentine Latin Masses
By Fr. Martin Stepanich, OFM, STD

Our Lord’s “Little Flock” of today’s genuine traditional Catholics, scattered about as it is in various places, has the distinction of preserving intact the Tridentine Latin Mass as it was put before the Catholic world by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, in response to a directive of the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563). In his Quo Primum decree of July 19, 1570, the Holy Father declared that his objective was to "restore," as he worded it, the ancient "norm and rite of the Mass of the Fathers" – that is, the norm and rite of the Latin Mass as it was offered by popes and bishops and priests since the early years of the Church’s existence.

 A strange development of these distressing Vatican II times is the fact that the Tridentine Latin Mass is now being offered by bishops and priests of two conflicting groups. One groups of today’s truly traditional bishops and priests offering the Tridentine Latin Mass leaves out completely the name of any pope from the una cum phrase that comes up towards the end of the Te Igitur prayer with which the Canon of the Tridentine Mass begins. Those who use hand missals, such as Father Lasance’s missal or St. Andrew’s missal, will know right away just where the una cum phrase comes up in the Mass, and will know what it means.

 The other group, on the contrary, does the un-traditional and decidedly un-Catholic thing of inserting into the una cum phrase the name of the current modernist occupier of Peter’s Papal Chair (called also the Holy See). At this time, it is the name of modernist Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) that is added to the una cum phrase, making it an una cum Benedicto phrase. The full wording of that phrase, as it is given in the altar missal used by the priest, is una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N.—that is, "together with Thy servant, our Pope, N." Before Benedict, it had been the name of Modernist John Paul (Wojtyla) that was put into the una cum phrase for some almost endless 25 years, and before him it was Modernist Paul (Montini) and Modernist John (Roncalli).

 Both groups are really sedevacantist in regard to the vacancy of the Holy See that is caused by the death of a true Catholic pope, or by a pope’s resignation (which did happen once, many centuries ago). But the vacancy issue that divides the two groups today is the vacancy of Peter’s Chair that is brought about by Modernist claimants and occupiers of that Chair who have not been professing nor practicing the traditional and unchangeable Catholic Faith for practically the past 50 years, and who therefore did not really belong on the Papal Chair of infallible truth and supreme authority.

 Benedict XVI (b16), the present illegitimate occupier of Peter’s Chair, plainly does not profess nor teach nor defend the complete and unchanged traditional Catholic Faith. In fact, his brand of supposedly "Catholic" religion is a mixture of religions. As the whole world has been able to see, B16 has been boldly and brazenly associating and collaborating with leaders of other religions in their kind of man-made religious performances, in open contradiction to the one and only true Christian religion established by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

 A man like that cannot possibly be a true Catholic pope, nor can he be honestly addressed as "The Holy Father." He is not even a genuine Catholic. And that means that the Chair of Peter is in reality vacant, even with B16 all dressed up as a pope occupying it. That is what is meant by that word "sedevacantism" which is used so much today—that is, the vacancy caused by a no-pope illegitimately occupying the Papal Chair.

 The first of the two groups mentioned above includes, for example, the famed "Legendary Nine," that is the nine priests dismissed from the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) by Archbishop Lefebvre long ago, with some of those priests now being bishops. That first group includes also those of the so-called "Thuc line" (after Archbishop Thuc), as well as those of the Spokane-based CMRI—plus others, including even some lone Franciscans.

 The second group includes mainly, but not only, those of the SSPX, such as it is today, that is, a mixed confusion of ant-sedevacantism, inasmuch as it mistakenly and stubbornly looks upon B16 as being a legitimate occupier of Peter’s Chair, and at the same time of sedevacantism, inasmuch as it stubbornly persists in disobeying B16 in refusing to go along with all of his aberrations – as if telling him that, for them, he is not really the pope, and therefore, the Papal Chair is really vacant.

 Such being the confused and confusing situation facing today’s traditional Catholics, they are in the perplexing position of being obliged to decide whether it is ever lawful for them to attend the otherwise valid Tridentine Latin Masses of the SSPX, despite the presence of no-pope religion-mixer B16’s name in the Canon of those Masses. There are variations of understanding and practice among sedevacantist traditional Catholics as to the lawfulness of them attending una cum Benedicto Masses.

 Many traditional Catholics are fortunate enough—Deo gratias!—to be living within reachable distance of a sedevacantist church, or Mass location, where they can always attend a Benedicto-free Tridentine Latin Mass. However, if for some serious reason or other they are unable to get to their own usual sedevacantist church on a given Sunday (for example, because of bad weather conditions), yet are able to get to a near-by anti-sedevacantist SSPX church featuring the una cum Benedicto Mass, some of them will decide simply to stay home, not wanting to be part of such a Mass.

 Others among them, on the contrary, decide to go anyway to an SSPX una cum Benedicto valid Tridentine Latin Mass figuring that in such a case they surely would be justified in so doing provided that they do not consent to the priest adding the name of B16 to the una cum phrase. And then there are still others in whose region or country there is no B16-free Tridentine Latin Mass at all to go to, while there is an SSPX una cum Benedicto Mass within reach. They, too, would believe that they are justified in attending such a validly offered Mass, as long as they do not approve of the priest giving honorable mention in the Mass to a false pope.

Which is the right decision for sedevacantist traditional Catholics to make on this puzzling headache issue? Is it, as some believe, never lawful to attend any una cum Benedicto Mass for any reason whatsoever, no matter how valid and Catholic it may otherwise be? Does the name of a false pope in the Canon of the Mass so vitiate the Mass that it is unfit to be attended by conscientious traditional Catholics? Are the act of offering the Mass by the priest and his act of naming a false pope so closely bound up together that the Mass cannot be spiritually beneficial to those attending the Mass if the name of a false pope is included in the prayers of the Mass? Does the very presence of traditional Catholics at an una cum Benedicto Mass automatically an unavoidably mean that they ratify and consent to the naming of B16 in the Mass?

 We naturally had to wonder if there is some kind of teaching of popes and theologians of pre-Vatican II times that would help clear up things for us on that thorny una cum Benedicto issue. A determined and well-meaning attempt to settle things on that issue has indeed been made, although the purpose was decidedly  one-sided, inasmuch as the idea was to prove that in no way could traditional Catholics ever lawfully attend una cum Benedicto Masses. Research, described as "exhaustive research," has come with the statement that "various popes and pre-Vatican II theologians taught that the laity who assist actively at mass, in so doing manifest their consent and moral cooperation with the priest as he offers the Sacrifice," but also to his adding of the name of B16 to the Canon of the Mass.

 However, it is as plain as could be that there is no indication whatsoever, in the above quote, that the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians referred to gave any thought at all to Masses with the name of a false pope in the una cum phrase of the Canon. They undoubtedly had in mind the kind of Mass they knew, that is, the traditional Latin Mass of the ages, not anything like the una cum Benedicto Masses that we know today.

 The unquestionable fact is that the popes and theologians of pre-Vatican II times did not see with their own eyes the Modernist popes promoting a plainly new un-Catholic religion, the way we have been doing, nor did they hear with their own ears the false teaching of modernist popes and theologians, nor did they ever get to read their modernist un-Catholic writings. So they did not have occasion to warn against, and condemn, Masses like the una cum Benedicto Masses that today’s traditional theologians, as well as informed lay Catholics, have been obliged to condemn repeatedly in these Vatican II times. Pre-Vatican II popes and theologians did not address the una cum Benedicto Mass issue, of which they knew nothing first hand the way we have known it.

If we try to use the words of popes and pre-Vatican II theologians, as already quoted above, and make them say that attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses is always absolutely forbidden under any and all circumstances, it is we who are really doing that kind of forbidding, not the popes and the pre-Vatican II theologians. Just try to find anything in the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians that totally and absolutely forbids any and all attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses by traditional sedevacantist Catholics. It just isn’t there! (Emphasis mine---Introibo)

 A second quote, resulting from the aforementioned "exhaustive research," tells us that "the Fathers of the Church, as well as Pope Pius XII, in his Encyclical Mediator Dei, teach specifically that the faithful who actively assist at Mass ratify, assent to, and participate in the prayers of the Canon that the priest recites."
What that second quote really does is to stress the fact that the faithful attending Mass are not there merely as spectators watching the priest perform at the altar. No, they are present at Mass to unite themselves with the priest in heart and mind and intention as he offers the Sacrifice. It is not enough for the faithful to be there at Mass only bodily, while maybe saying prayers of their own that have no connection with the Mass.

The faithful attending Mass are there as one with the priest, so that the Mass is being offered by the priest and the faithful together. The priest alone has the power to offer the Mass and to consecrate, but the faithful unite themselves with the priest, as he offers the Mass, though not as he consecrates. The idea that the faithful as closely united with the priest in the offering of the Mass runs all through the various prayers of the Sacrifice. For example, "offerimus," that is, "we offer" – also, "pray that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable before God the Father Almighty."

 And that is the issue which the second quote given above really addresses –that is, the issue of the union of the attending faithful with the offering priest. And that is why that second quote says that the faithful "ratify, assent to and participate in the prayers of the Canon that the priest recites." Those prayers of the Canon which the Fathers and Pius XII, were undoubtedly referring to were the traditional fully Catholic prayers of the Mass as they were always recited before Vatican II, without any false pope’s name being mixed into the prayers. The Fathers and Pius XII, as well as the pre-Vatican II theologians, did not have occasion to warn about attendance at Masses giving recognition to a false pope. They did not address an issue like that because such an issue did not as yet exist.

 Even if we recognize the fact that sedevacantist traditional Catholics definitely can, for the right reason and with the right attitude, lawfully attend valid SSPX una cum Benedicto Tridentine Latin Masses by not consenting to the naming of the pope-pretender B16 in the Canon, we may still have reason to advise caution if we see that some may have the reckless and careless notion that the priest can say what he wants in the prayers of the Mass, just so they have a valid Mass to attend. Such an attitude is inexcusable.

A very disturbing thing about attendance at una cum Benedicto Tridentine Latin Masses is the fact that it is an awful sin to give honorable mention in the Holy Sacrifice to a false pope. To put it bluntly, it is a mortal sin—that is, in itself, considered objectively, it is plainly mortally sinful. To what extent SSPX and other priests naming a false pope in the Canon of the Mass are subjectively guilty before God —that is consciously and knowingly—that is something that only God can judge accurately and correctly.

But even though it is in itself and objectively mortally sinful for a priest to add the name of a non-pope to the una cum phrase of the Canon, that mortally sinful action can in no way change the nature of the Sacrifice itself, nor nullify its validity, nor lesson its spiritual value for those attending it.

The situation created by naming a false pope in the Mass has been called a "mortal sin situation." It helps to understand how we should look upon such a "mortal sin situation" if we consider the fact that in this sinful world we are constantly running into "mortal sin situations." We do so, for example, just by living with mortal sinners, maybe even in our own family circles; or, in dealing with and cooperating with such sinners at work or play or leisure; or, in business deals, in shopping in stores whose owners and managers approve of and promote, for example, abortion and sodomy and other evils; or, owners who are part of some evil secret society. Even such a thing as having to go through store check-outs displaying all those raw flesh mortal sin magazines is plainly an unavoidable "mortal sin situation." And how could we possibly avoid all the ubiquitous raw flesh mortal sin creatures that infest just about every place on earth, sparing not even Our Lord’s Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament?

What we cannot fail to understand is that being unavoidably caught in a "mortal sin situation" does not mean that we necessarily "ratify, assent to, and participate in" the mortal sins in question. Similarly,neither are traditional Catholics automatically and necessarily and unavoidably guilty of "ratifying, assenting to, and participating in” the mortal sin of naming a false pope in otherwise valid una cum Benedicto Tridentine Latin Masses, if they attend such Masses for a justifiable reason and with the right attitude of mind. (Emphasis mine). 

 Some might wonder what happens to the two words, una cum ("together with") when there is no pope to be named in the una cum phrase. The truth is that those two words are still needed for mentioning the name of the bishop of the diocese in which the priest is offering Mass. Thus: una cum antistite nostro, N. (That is, "together with our bishop, N."). When Pope Pius XII died in 1958, priests living in the Chicago Archdiocese still had to say when offering Mass, una cum... antistite nostro Alberto (That is,"together with… our Bishop Albert," meaning Albert Meyer, later Cardinal Meyer).

And when there is neither pope nor bishop to be named in the una cum phrase—whether because of death or apostasy from the true catholic Faith—those two una cum words are still needed for mentioning all the faithful in general at the end of the Te Igitur prayer with which the Canon of the Mass begins. Those using missals at Mass will know that the Te Igitur prayer ends up with these words: una cum …orthodoxis, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus (that is:"together with … all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and Apostolic Faith").

Those who have been thoughtlessly and carelessly making it look as if all una cum Masses are objectionable, and are to be avoided, had better get things straight, and finally tell their hearers and readers that it is the una cum Benedicto Masses that are objectionable, and are normally to be avoided, not the una cum Masses. (Emphasis mine---Introibo)

 The plain fact is that all Tridentine Latin Masses are una cum Masses. All of my over 24,000 Tridentine Latin Masses offered since May of 1941, the month and year of my ordination, have been una cum Masses. None of them were Novus Ordo performances. For that a jubilant Deo gratias!!!

Excerpt from the Letter of Fr. Stepanich to Bishop Dolan
"If, as some wrongly advise you to do, you believe that traditional Catholics should avoid absolutely all Tridentine Latin Masses (like those, for example, of most, if not all, SSPX priests) in which the priest inexcusably adds the name of the scandalous religion-mixer, Benedict XVI Ratzinger, to the words una cum in the Te Igitur prayer at the beginning of the Canon of the Tridentine Latin Mass, you are not following sound advice, even though coming from those who have supposedly "exhaustively researched and studied the question of una cum Masses," but without coming to the correct conclusion.

 One thing we must not fail to realize is that Tridentine Latin Masses offered with the insertion of Benedicto after una cum are not in any way vitiated as to their validity and liceity, as well as to their fruitfulness for those attending such Masses. And such Masses can in no way be honestly called "One World Church" Masses. That derogatory term applies to Novus Ordo performances, but never to Tridentine Latin Masses, not even to those with the word Benedicto added to the una cum.

The priest offering a valid Tridentine Latin Mass who adds the word Benedicto to the una cum is, of course, seriously mistaken, whether he realizes it or not. What he does is objectively, in itself, seriously sinful, even if subjectively, in his own mind, he mistakenly thinks he is doing the right thing.

 As for traditional Catholics who attend such una cum Benedicto Masses, because they have no other Tridentine Latin Mass within reasonable distance to go to, they must never approve of the priest adding
Benedicto to una cum, nor may they be indifferent about the priest doing so, nor may they ever get the idea that it really makes no difference whether they go to a St. Gertrude Church type of una cum Mass or to an
SSPX church type of such a Mass, in which Benedicto is added to the una cum.

And let it be clearly understood that, if we concede that traditional Catholics, with no other Mass available to go to than an SSPX una cum Benedicto Mass, may lawfully go to such an SSPX Mass for the sake of the graces needed and desired, we by no means concede that they may also get involved with in any and all SSPX activities that take place in a "B16 is pope" atmosphere. We concede only that, by way of exception, they may legitimately choose to go to SSPX una cum Benedicto Masses instead of being obliged to stay home as home-aloners. But once they are able to go again to the kind of una cum Masses that are offered at true traditional churches, they must stop going to the una cum Benedicto Masses altogether. They must never forget that the name of a pope-pretender, such as the name of the religion-mixer B16, cannot lawfully be given the honorable place reserved only for the names of true Catholic popes after the words una cum at the beginning of the Canon of the Tridentine Latin Mass.

 Let us repeat once again, and as often as necessary, that a priest who, whether knowingly or supposedly innocent ignorance, adds Benedicto to the words of the una cum in his offering of the Tridentine Latin Mass does not and cannot, ruin the inherent value and fruitfulness of that Mass, which retains all its God-given holiness, whether the priest is in a state of grace or in the state of mortal sin. We have known from time immemorial that there have been priests who, most unfortunately, have been in the state of mortal sin while offering Holy Mass, yet their lack of personal holiness has not destroyed the infinite holiness of their Masses.

 You surely must remember that Canon 2261, of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, clearly states that "the Faithful may, for any just reason, ask for the sacraments and sacramentals from an excommunicated person…" As you can readily understand, a priest who knowingly and willfully adds the name Benedicto to
the una cum prayer of the Canon of the Mass, while fully aware that religion-mixer B16 cannot possibly be
a true Catholic pope, must certainly be ipso facto excommunicated. And you know that, by Church law, the
faithful may lawfully attend his Masses and receive Communion from his excommunicated hand."

Pax et Bonum,
(signed)
Father Martin Stépanich, OFM, STD

130 comments:

  1. Thanks again for your contribution to helping to preserve our faith. However I must say that I didn't think Fr. Stepanich refuted Fr. Cekada's argument. It may or may not be that Pope Pius XII was referring to Joining in the priest prayer rather than being inattentive, however:
    1) Since he didn't provide anything to back it up , it is at best his words against Fr. Cekada's.
    2) Fr. Cekada' s article went much beyond quoting Pope Pius XII.

    2) Moral participation is the issue here. But is there anywhere anyone who has really countered Fr. Cekada 's argument regarding moral participation? I would appreciate it if i am shown. I probably may have missed it, considering that i get so involved with seminary classes and missions that i don't read as much as i should regarding traditionalist controversies.

    God bless you .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Father,
      The question is rather, “How does Fr Cekada know that Pope Pius XII’s statement applied to a situation he obviously never foresaw or contemplated?” When an approved theologian offering Mass since 1941 never realized this “Truth” even after the Great Apostasy, Fr Cekada is trying to apply principles to situations never envisioned by the very theologians and canonists he quotes.

      Ad arguendo, let’s assume adding the name of a false pope puts the priest in union with Bergoglio. He has placed himself outside the Church (excommunication). However, Canon 2261 would allow attendance at his Mass and to receive Communion from him “for any just reason.” The Code, which is infallible and cannot give evil as a universal disciplinary Law, would not permit such if it were intrinsically evil.

      If participation in the Mass of an excommunicated priest is allowed for ANY just cause, it cannot be evil to attend Una Cum, much less avoid Holy Viaticum Consecrated at such a Mass when the intended recipient didn’t even attend the Mass!

      God Bless you Father!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. I'm no fan of Fr. Cekada, so I'm not going to defend him. However, the problem I have with masses in union with the Vatican 2 popes is not that the antipope is inserted into the canon, but that no one in those churches professes the Catholic faith. They are essentially non-Catholic churches. Sure the mass is valid, but so are Eastern Orthodox liturgies. Can we attend them, too?

    Also, I noticed an error above, where it was stated that a pope resign "which did happen once, many centuries ago." The fact is it happened not once, but at least 3 times and perhaps more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the case of so-called Indult or Motu “Masses” (most are invalid) as well as those of the FSSP, I would agree that they don’t have the Integral Catholic Faith. In the case of the SSPX, St Marcel Institute Of Bp Williamson, and many independents, I disagree. They have mixed-up theology (to say the least) but they profess the Integral Catholic Faith and reject the false teachings of the V2 sect with its false popes. Fr. Stepanich was making a passing reference to the fact that a pope can licitly resign, and it happened in the past. He was not claiming it was a single instance, nor was it the point he was making.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. How can you say that the SSPX professes the integral Catholic Faith? Can they ordain priests or consecrate bishops against the explicit prohibition of the Pope? Can they accuse the Holy See of promulgating harmful, evil, or heretical sacramental rites for the entire Western church? Can they reject the canonization of saints they don't think are worthy of the status when their Pope says otherwise? Can they set up their own marriage tribunals, a privilege enjoyed only by the Holy See? NO they cannot if they want to call themselves Catholics and Francis their pope. This article doesn't convince me to attend their (SSPX, independents, etc.) Mass when nothing else is available but it actually convinces me to do the opposite (That is STAY AWAY from all heretics). Just like St. Hermenegild refused to receive Holy Communion from an Arian heretic under danger of death so to with him will I refuse to receive communion from an heretical SSPX priest or bishop.

      Delete
    3. The SSPX are heretical schismatics. They aren't Catholic at all! Fr. Stephanich said "it did happen once..."

      Delete
    4. @anonymous7:12
      The SSPX want to be Catholic and do mental gymnastics to justify their position. I agree with you that it is harder and harder for them to be in good faith about it. It is a FACT that their are crypto-Sedevacantists in the SSPX. A friend of mine knows a woman who has a brother as a SSPX priest, and he is Sedevacantist. If your conscience tells you not to go to the SSPX you should not go. However, people without any other option should not be told they CANNOT ATTEND.

      In danger of death, you can receive the Last Rites from ANY validly ordained priest, whether excommunicated, Eastern Schismatic, or a notorious heretic. Yet Fr Cekada tells us the Una Cum is so evil, you can’t receive Holy Viaticum Consecrated at such a Mass. Does THAT even begin to make sense to you?

      @anonymous7:22
      Fr Stepanich did not say “...it ONLY happened once.”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. All heretics do mental gymnastics to justify their position but they are still heretics. We can't judge whether they are in good faith. Even Protestants can be in good faith, but we must judge the externals, not the internals. The SSPX are heretical schismatics as far as we are concerned.

      Yes, we can receive the Last Rites, Confession, etc. from any excommunicated priest under extraordinary circumstances, but that's different from attending mass with them. Eastern Orthodox want to be part of historic Christianity too, but they are not. Can we attend their masses?

      Fr. Stephanich said, "(which did happen once, many centuries ago)" which implies it happened a single time. I know this wasn't the main point, but to think he meant 'once upon a time, there were popes who resigned' really doesn't follow. He words indicated that he thought it happened only once and that's okay. We all make mistakes. It's common for people to think Pope Celestine V was the only pope to resign.

      Delete
    6. What we have is a unique situation. All heretics in the past we’re looking for ways to part ways with the papacy—SSPX is trying to be united to the papacy.

      My point on receiving the Last Rites from heretics in danger of death with no other option, was to show the lunacy of Fr Cekada’s ever-growing list of made up prohibitions. You can’t receive Holy Viaticum from an SSPX priest if the Host was Consecrated during an Una Cum Mass. Really?
      You can only go to Confession outside the danger of death to SSPX if their is no danger of scandal, he tells us. Can you go to an Eastern Schismatic if their is no danger of scandal?

      You do get the point that Fr Stepanich was not writing a dissertation on the history of papal resignations. You did mean Pope ST. Celestine, right? We all make mistakes.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. The SSPX is trying to be united to the Vatican II papacy, which is really no papacy and they want the Vatican II papacy to bow down to them when it's the other way around in Catholicism. Can you go to a Mass said by an Eastern Orthodox Schismatic is what was asked of you by Anonymous 8:14 AM. Not the other sacraments in danger of death.

      Delete
    8. @anonymous
      Ok, you have a separate issue here. You are avoiding them for doctrinal reasons beyond the scope of this post, and which I need not get into at this time.

      I know a validly ordained priest from pre-V2. He rejects the errors and evils of V2 and its false popes. He does not want to reunite with Modernist Rome. He uses the name of Francis in the Canon because “he may be the pope, and if so, I’m praying for his conversion.”

      He’s mistaken but does Una Cum put him off limits?
      Fr. C would say yes!

      Here is the statement of the Sedevacantist CMRI:

      “Although C.M.R.I. does not accept John Paul II as a legitimate successor of St. Peter, it does not consider such traditional priests (who offer "una cum" Masses) as schismatic. For, if such priests were schismatic in the canonical sense of the word, then they would be required, upon their recognition of the vacancy of the Apostolic See, to abjure their error and be received back into the Church.

      "Nevertheless, it has never been the practice of any traditional bishop or priest to require this abjuration of error of any priest who at one time mistakenly recognized John Paul II as a true pope.

      "This does not mean that C.M.R.I. in any way endorses the theological contradiction of those traditional priests who maintain that John Paul II is a true pope.

      "Lastly, we exhort the faithful to use great discretion when they approach such priests for the Sacraments. This is especially true in regard to their children, who may be confused by their erroneous opinions on the Papacy and on the infallibility of the Church."

      Bp. Mark Pivarunas, C.M.R.I., Superior General
      The Priests of C.M.R.I.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. I don't believe the CMRI are right on that point, but keep in mind that was said in 2002. Do they hold that same position now as a group? One priest I know from their group doesn't believe that because every time somebody new comes to his mission they ask him what about whether it's okay to attend places like the SSPX and he always says no. I know he doesn't speak for the whole group but he doesn't speak like that statement. Regardless of what the CMRI says now or then, common sense should speak for itself and that is the SSPX are obstinate (priests and bishops and a majority of lay people) against the sedevacantist position and yet their position is totally heretical and schismatic by the very facts of what was mentioned in the above comments. Even when I was in the Novus Ordo twenty years ago, the conservative novus ordos even recognized that they were not Catholic. You cannot go to a non Catholic Mass or liturgy or otherwise you share in the guilt of praying with non catholics. Pope St. Agatho said "he who prays with heretics is a heretic."

      Delete
    10. The SSPX are not trying to be united to the papacy. They recognize Francis as pope but refuse to obey ordinaries, etc. They are schismatics no matter how you slice it. They also reject the teaching of the Church on what makes a Catholic a member of the Church, the law of the Church on heretics, etc. The SSPX don't profess the Faith therefore they aren't Catholic. Are you actually arguing that one can profess heresy, reject the laws of the Church, and refuse to obey one he thinks is pope as Catholic?

      As for Fr Stepanich, are you admitting now that he made a factual error in his explanation? Yes, I make mistakes all the time, but leaving "St" out is not an error. We often leave out "St" when referring to saints. We do it with Peter, Pius X, etc. Not sure why you felt the need to add this to your reply.

      Delete
    11. First, I don’t know if Fr Stepanich made an error or not, but it was as besides the point as leaving out “St.” it had no real bearing on what you were saying.

      According to Theologian Cajetan, “Disobedience, no matter how pertinacious, does not constitute schism unless it be a rebellion against the office of the pope." (See as Quoted by Cardinal Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, 4th ed., pp. 289-290). They recognize Bergoglio precisely because they don’t want to go against the office of the pope—which is what they accuse Sedevacantists of doing!

      Now, it follows from the idea that Bergoglio is pope that Holy Church has defected or Bergoglio is not pope. With ideas advanced by Siscoe and Salza, et al, there can be confusion. Let’s face it, in the time of the Great Western Schism, you had a choice between orthodox Catholics as pope. In the Great Apostasy you can hold that a heretic can be pope and resisted, or we have had no pope for 60 years. The latter choice is not so obvious that one could be blamed for thinking its the latter. it is not true to say that the idea that Begoglio is pope is directly opposed to the faith. And therefore it is not necessarily heretical. It remains (at the very least) possible that those who think Bergoglio is truly the Vicar of Christ retain their belief that Holy Church is indefectible. And in fact, SSPX clergy who adhere to Bergoglio make it abundantly clear that they do believe Holy Church to be indefectible. Furthermore, it is notorious that R&R clergy who maintain that Bergoglio is pope do so precisely because they are under the impression that to deny this would involve implicit denial of the indefectibility of Holy Church, and would thus sever themselves from Her. A more clearly non-heretical mindset could not be imagined.

      Just as Fr Cekada maintains the Old Rites Of Holy Week, yet his arguments undermine the legitimacy of Pope Pius XII, I don’t call him a heretic because he professes the correct doctrine nevertheless.

      SSPX and R&R clergy are mistaken, not heretical. As even Fr Cekada states that such clergy are Sedevacantist but they just don’t realize it yet!

      I’m looking forward to the day the SSPX becomes Sedevacantist. Until then, they remain a viable option for Traditionalists with no other choice.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    12. I agree. I wish all so-called Catholics held to sedevacantism. The SSPX are most certainly in rebellion to what they think is the papacy even if their "pope" is not pope. They are rebelling against Pope Pius XII's teaching on what makes one a member of the Church and the Code of Law on what happens to heretics.

      I don't agree with Cekada about SSPX and R&R clergy. Ask them how they aren't denying the dogma on oneness of faith when they hold to one dogma while their "pope" and N.O. clergy reject it publicly. Ask them how their religion holds any of the 4 marks as the Catholic Church has defined those marks. You'll quickly find out that they are indeed as heretical as Protestants/Eastern Orthodox, and even some sede's like the Dimond brothers.

      Delete
    13. You said "it is not true to say that the idea that Begoglio is pope is directly opposed to the faith. And therefore it is not necessarily heretical. It remains (at the very least) possible that those who think Bergoglio is truly the Vicar of Christ retain their belief that Holy Church is indefectible. And in fact, SSPX clergy who adhere to Bergoglio make it abundantly clear that they do believe Holy Church to be indefectible."

      If it's true to say that Bergoglio is pope and it wouldn't be against the Faith, then that would mean they would have to submit and obey him as such, instead resisting. Do the SSPX do that? NO. Are they suppose to if they are Catholic? Yes. They are still excommunicated from the Novus ordo Church. Sure they may be able to hear confessions, assist at weddings etc. for "mercy" sake, but they are not even in union with their pope as much as they want to play this endless game. The SSPX and R&R are mistaken heretics and schismatics plain and simple. Since you will do everything you can to keep defending this sect I'm through with reading your stuff. Good bye

      Delete
    14. @anonymous6:02
      Even if the SSPX is a “heretical sect” as you claim, the Faithful may, in necessity, receive the Sacraments from UNDECLARED HERETICS. According to Theologian DeLugo:
      “The second chief doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and human affairs or even in sacred and spiritual things. It is certain that we cannot communicate with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit profession of error. But the question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be present while he celebrates in the Catholic rite, etc.

      “But the opposite view [i.e. that such communication is permitted] is general [communis] and true, unless it should be illicit for some other reason on account of scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and Sanchez, Suarez, Hurtado and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of penance and of matrimony and the other sacraments. It is also certain by virtue of the said litterae extravagantes [i.e. Ad evitanda scandala] in which communication with excommunicati tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and administration of the sacraments.

      “So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication, although on other grounds this may often be illicit unless necessity excuse as I have explained in the said places.” (See Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio 1).

      My blog is to warn, inform, and discuss the issues that face us in the Great Apostasy. I don’t care if you read it or not, because I feel called to do this by God, and whatever good comes of it, the credit and glory belong to Him alone. If God uses me as His unworthy instrument to save even one soul who reads this blog, then all the research and writing for just that one person was more than worth it.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    15. Are those in the FSSP Novus ordo "declared" heretics. No. Do you say to stay away from the FSSP in the Novus Ordo even though as you say they don't have the integral Catholic Faith? Yes. Yet the SSPX identifies the Novus Ordo Church and it's heretical teachings as the Catholic Church. The SSPX identifies Francis I as the "pope" even though they reject him (rightly so) but don't obey him when they believe him to be pope (wrongly so both for not obeying and believing him to be something he is not). This means they reject the papal primacy and believe any pope can teach heresy to the whole Church (which is heresy). At least the "undeclared" heretics in the FSSP are more consistent than the SSPX, for they at least obey who they think is pope. You come across to me as a liberal when it comes these issues. Even though I do not subscribe to Fr. Cekada, I do agree with him when he said "you can get into heaven without the Mass, but you cannot get into heaven without the Catholic Faith."

      Delete
    16. @ anonymous 11:03
      Once again, distinctions need to be made. The FSSP must profess the heresies of V2. The SSPX withholds consent because they are "not in conformity with Tradition" or V2 must be understood "in the light of Tradition" which means they will continue to hold the True doctrine while rejecting the false.

      As I wrote to a commenter below, the SSPX profess the Catholic Faith; they mistake the person of the pope and try to "save" the papacy while making excuses for disobedience ("state of emergency," etc.) It is a unique situation. Are Fr. Cekada and the SSPV heretics because while claiming the Church is Indefectible, they de facto undermine Pope Pius XII by using the Old Holy Week Rites?

      So, I will not call any of them heretics. Fr. Cekada himself, when a member of the SSPV, told someone I know they could go to a validly ordained V2 sect priest for Confession outside the danger of death because he was an undeclared heretic (I know other clerics who still maintain the same). So (1)they are not non-Catholic, and even if excommunicated ipso facto, Canon Law allows the Faithful to receive the sacraments from the excommunicated. (2) You are correct about automatic loss of office for heresy. Here, it is inapposite because SSPX DO profess all the truths of faith and have no "office" to lose. It is still a minority opinion (which may be held) that undeclared heretics may be approached for the Sacraments in case of necessity. They use the CATHOLIC Rite. I don't subscribe to the undeclared heretic opinion, but I don't need to in this case.

      As far as labels are concerned "Traditionalist" --a True Catholic--is what I strive to be. I've been called "a right wing crazy" for being sedevacantist, and a "heretical liberal" for believing in the Truth of Baptism of Desire. I even had one reader claim I was a "secret Jew" out to undermine the Faith. The "proof"? 1. I live in NYC, 2. I'm a lawyer, and 3. I don't like Hitler.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. Great article and inpersI personally agree with Fr.Stepanich.
    Don't forget the FSSP & ICKSP DO NOT have valid Priests OR Bishops.
    -ANDREW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I personally agree with Fr.Stepanich.
      -ANDREW

      Delete
    2. Andrew,
      You are correct! Moreover, FSSP, and ICKSP are part of the V2 Sect. They accept the heresies of Vatican II. You could not attend even if it was Fr. Bisig, one of the very few valid FSSP priests ordained by Apb. Lefebvre.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. They never got the Bishop they were promised.

      Delete
    4. @Tom
      I've read Fr.Bisig (ordained by Bp.Lefevbre) was forced to resign as superior general because he asked about the traditional rite Bishop promised to them,one too many times.
      As in,
      "Where's our Bishop,got any names yet?
      When he is going to start conferring orders & giving us Holy Oils?"
      Who knows,this may not be true?
      It doesn't matter as they are required to consent to the V2 heresies & are obligated to acknowledge the Novus Ordo fulfills the Sunday obligation.

      Delete
    5. It does in a way show that Abp Lefebrve was correct in his assessment that Rome was not going to give him a bishop.

      Delete
  4. this for me goes beyond the una cum. Yes I would go to SSPX in danger of death, but they are heretical. They deny the indefectibility of the church by their outward signs and as an organization. It is public too and they teach it in their seminaries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It gets complicated and you should follow your conscience.

      The Sedevacantist CMRI has this to say:
      Here is the statement of the Sedevacantist CMRI:

      “Although C.M.R.I. does not accept John Paul II as a legitimate successor of St. Peter, it does not consider such traditional priests (who offer "una cum" Masses) as schismatic. For, if such priests were schismatic in the canonical sense of the word, then they would be required, upon their recognition of the vacancy of the Apostolic See, to abjure their error and be received back into the Church.

      "Nevertheless, it has never been the practice of any traditional bishop or priest to require this abjuration of error of any priest who at one time mistakenly recognized John Paul II as a true pope.

      "This does not mean that C.M.R.I. in any way endorses the theological contradiction of those traditional priests who maintain that John Paul II is a true pope.

      "Lastly, we exhort the faithful to use great discretion when they approach such priests for the Sacraments. This is especially true in regard to their children, who may be confused by their erroneous opinions on the Papacy and on the infallibility of the Church."

      Bp. Mark Pivarunas, C.M.R.I., Superior General
      The Priests of C.M.R.I.

      Are the CMRI and SSPV off limits for allowing people to attend SSPX? They should be off limits if you believe them to be heretical because then those Sedevacantist groups are aiding and abetting heresy.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. Those who accept una cum Frank masses are liberals who put the mass before the faith. If Francis is a non-Catholic and an antipope then you can't be in communion with him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You’re begging the question as to whether Una Cum truly makes you in union with Bergoglio (or the other V2 antipopes. Theologian Stepanich didn’t think it did, nor did canonist DePauw.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Anon @12:21. I take exception to your stereotypical statement that “Those who accept una cum Frank masses are liberals who put the mass before the faith”. I accept Una Cum Masses and I am not a liberal nor do I put the Mass before the Faith. You are assuming way too much regarding people’s stance whom you do not even know by making blanket statements. When people who are new to Sedevacantism hear or see statements such as the one you made, it is a big turn off. Being charitable is more difficult sometimes than being judgmental. “By their fruits you shall know them”.

      Delete
    3. Stepanich was wrong and DePauw was weak. He was weak until his death. I have no respect for closet Sedevacantists.

      JoAnn, if you want to be Catholic then do it all the way or not at all.

      Delete
    4. @anonymous5:36
      I posted your boorish and uncharitable claims because this is what I find among most who are insistent in making up rules about Una Cum and other issues on disputed points of theology.

      You make, not arguments, but baseless assertions. “Stepanich was wrong. DePauw was weak.” Weak?!? No one came out publicly and unapologetically against Vatican II as he did in 1964 while the Robber Council was still going on. He lead the way. Fr Stepanich is an approved theologian and Fr DePauw an approved canonist. You are unqualified in both areas, and it doesn’t surprise me that so is Fr Cekada and Bp. Dolan.

      Not only are you incapable of proper decorum in a public forum and unable to formulate reasoned arguments, you have the unmitigated gall to tell Joann “how to be Catholic.” As one of my long time readers, I can assure you that Joann is thoughtful, kind, intelligent, and is doing her best to make her Catholic way through this time of the Great Apostasy. If anyone needs “lessons” on how to be Catholic, it is you, and boors like you who should discover what it means to be charitable. You only drive people away from the Church you purport to serve and know so well.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Anon @5:36 - I was born pre-Vatican II in the 1950’s. I was raised with the Latin Mass and lost my way after Vatican II. I couldn’t understand what had happened to the Church I loved and grew up in. With God’s Grace I found my way back to the Faith and the Church 3 1/2 yrs ago. I know what it means to be Catholic, but you evidentially only know how to be a dogmatic and opionated Sedevacatist. A term I believe has only gained popularity and been around since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.

      Delete
    6. Thank you for another informative article.

      The local SSPX venue has a picture of Bergoglio in the vestibule. I go there rarely, though am grateful that the priest is validly ordained and not one of their NO imports.

      While I agree with Fr. Stepanich's assessments, it's still hard to see that picture when assisting at that chapel.

      Delete
    7. Quit going if it bothers you so much, Barbara. I have one within an hour away and I don't go and I'm proud of it.

      Delete
    8. @Barbara,
      It must be very hard to see the leader of the V2 sect! That’s why Sedevacantist Masses are always preferred, and we must both pray and try to convert R&Rs to the Sedevacantist position.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. Everyone concerned with the crisis in the Church today is offering their own OPINION. You may think a previous Pope has settled the issues but obviously there isnt one around to settle anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That comment wasnt directed to you Introibo, it was directed to any and all dogmatic sedes or dogmatic R&Rers out there who insist they have figured out this incredible mess we are in. I do my research as best as I can and if it isnt something that has been unambigiously settled then I have no option but to form an opinion based on what I have learned not on how I feel.

      Delete
    2. Tom,
      A final determination cannot be had in a matter uniquely arisen since the Great Apostasy. However, the opinion of an approved theologian or canonist is not the same as an “opinion” in common parlance.

      We commonly think of opinions as matters of taste, “I like chocolate and Tom likes vanilla and those are our opinions.” When a medical doctor gives you a professional opinion, he’s not saying, “I’d like this condition for you to have better than others.” He’s telling you, based on his years of training and experience what is most likely the case. Ditto for legal opinions from lawyers.

      Theology is a science, and theologians work like doctors and lawyers. Those opinions carry significant weight. Fr Cekada is not a theologian or canonist, yet he invents an ever-growing list of offenses and prohibitions.

      The most offensive is the idea that you cannot receive Holy Viaticum in danger of death from a SSPX priest because the Host was Consecrated at an Una Cum Mass.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. And yet mal-practice is performed by "professional" doctors who error and contribute to the 3rd leading causes of death rate. Opinions from theologians carry a significant weight but are not infallible. The most offensive of ideas is to say one can assist at the Mass of non Catholics and deny that they aren't Catholic because they haven't been declared so. Has Francis been declared a heretic? Siscoe and Salza believe it's necessary for him to be declared so in order for him not to be pope. So does that mean he remains pope until he is declared? No he automatically falls from the Catholic Faith and the pontificate (he never had it to begin with) once his heresy is manifest just like these groups fall away from the Faith when they are manifest. The idea that "I think I'm Catholic therefore I am" does not make one a Catholic. One must be baptized and profess all the truths of the Catholic Religion.

      Delete
    4. @anonymous12:14
      You are correct that individual theologians can be mistaken (although not the corporate body of theologians--when we had such). However, despite malpractice, would you entrust your life to a medical doctor or a high school biology teacher who read some medical books in his spare time? How much more careful must we be with our souls!

      The SSPX profess the Catholic Faith; they mistake the person of the pope and try to "save" the papacy while making excuses for disobedience ("state of emergency," etc.) It is a unique situation. Are Fr. Cekada and the SSPV heretics because while claiming the Church is Indefectible, they de facto undermine Pope Pius XII by using the Old Holy Week Rites?

      So, I will not call any of them heretics. Fr. Cekada himself, when a member of the SSPV, told someone I know they could go to a validly ordained V2 sect priest for Confession outside the danger of death because he was an undeclared heretic (I know other clerics who still maintain the same). So (1)they are not non-Catholic, and even if excommunicated ipso facto, Canon Law allows the Faithful to receive the sacraments from the excommunicated. (2) You are correct about automatic loss of office for heresy. Here, it is inapposite because SSPX DO profess all the truths of faith and have no "office" to lose. It is still a minority opinion (which may be held) that undeclared heretics may be approached for the Sacraments in case of necessity. They use the CATHOLIC Rite. I don't subscribe to the undeclared heretic opinion, but I don't need to in this case.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Of course I would go to a medical specialist over some random person. My point was they can be mistaken as much as a theologian can be and with disastrous consequences not intended. BTW I had a kidney stone removed last year and I went to the supposed best urologist (in my area) who specializes in Kidney stone treatment/removal. He made a huge mistake which messed me up and because of his flub I had to undergo two more operations. I could have naturally attempted to fix it (which would require more time and no guarantee) but I figured I would be on the "safe" side and let him do it. I'll never go back to him next time if I get another, but elsewhere. The point is I agree with you our souls are much more important and but unlike you I wouldn't put it in jeopardy by going to an SSPX Mass.

      Where do you get this idea they are trying to "save" the papacy? They believe the papacy can teach heresy as if it's normal. So how can they save it if to them the gates of hell and the Church are one and the same thing? That would be a heresy and a blasphemy. They are not just disobedient. They are excommunicated by their own Church. Benedict XVI said their ministers have no canonical status in the Church so long as they refuse to agree that the Council was by the Holy Ghost etc. Read the 2009 letter.

      Nobody is talking about going to confession or getting extreme unction in danger of death. We agree that can be done (although I personally would do every thing I would to get a Catholic priest instead) We are talking about whether it's okay to go their Mass. Fr. C and the SSPV are huge problem and many commenters have made good points on your previous article.

      Delete
    6. @anonymous7:59
      I'm sorry about your medical issue and hope you're doing much better.

      That individual theologians can be in error: CONCEDED.
      That as a corporate body they can be in error: DENIED.
      We don't have a corporate body of theologians anymore, and I know you were not arguing against the idea. However, I hope the problem is becoming more apparent: Without a pope in place, we must act with charity towards those who are without a guide and wish to remain Catholic. The SSPX profess the Integral faith and believe (mistakenly) that to adhere to sedevacantism is to deny the Indefectibility of the Church. That is why they have numerous apologetics contra Sedevacantism which they shove down the throats of the seminarians.

      If you've ever read SSPX material (I'm sure you have) much of it is an attempt to show the "pope" and V2 did NOT teach heresy! In the SSPX book "Most asked Questions of the Society of St Pius X"
      on page 34 they deny that V2 was infallible, so it's not binding. The book as a whole goes on to state that the interpretations of the council were wrong because it was not "interpreted in the light of Tradition," etc. It condemns sedevacantism because "its weakness is in not being able to prove that any of these authorities (V2 "popes") are formal heretics." (pg. 59)

      Don't get me wrong. I'm very anti-R&R. They are wrong. But these are unique times where ordinary rules are hard to apply. Excommunicated? No, they say, "It was unjust." St. Athanasius was falsely excommunicated, they will add.

      It's VERY DIFFICULT to overcome their mentality, but they are reacting to a time like no other when the papacy has been vacant 60 years in October! In the Ave Maria Chapel, there was an intersting mix of sedes and R&R. By repeated and respectful discourse, I was able to get at least two R&Rs open to sedevacantism.

      The Mass of the SSPX is the Catholic Rite. Read again what Fr. Stepanich wrote. If we must avoid them, so too Fr. Cekada, and SSPV, and soon we stay Home Alone rather than following the dictum of St. Augustine, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity." If you can't go in good conscience, don't go. But don't burden the conscience of others with no choice.

      Consider this: We agree that you can go to any validly ordained priest (such as an Eastern Schismatic) in danger of death for the Last Rites. Fr. C tells us SSPX is WORSE than the Easterns because you can't receive Viaticum from them!

      On the other hand, we know that you CANNOT go to an Eastern Schismatic, outside the danger of death, for Confession. Fr. C tells us you CAN go to an SSPX priest as long as there is "no danger of scandal." So they're better than a false sect in one case, but worse in another.

      Let's fight Bergoglio, and try to convert the SSPX as some commenters have told me they have rethought the R&R position after reading my posts. Let's NOT make rules for others on disputed points of theology in unique times!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. Paul VI said it was binding when he said, "Each and every one of the things set forth in this [here the type of document is named] has won the consent of the fathers. We too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable Fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in Synod be published to God’s glory…I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church....We decide moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… we have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect... Dec. 8th 1965 Later he said in frustration "It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith." May 24, 1976

      So the SSPX website is irrelevant because Paul VI already addressed this and nothing they say can help them unless he's not the pope. You can't have it both ways. They know this. It's unjust to say their excommunication is unjust because they don't have any authority whatsoever to make that claim when they are under a pope they recognize as such.

      According to you I can claim to be Catholic yet deny anything the Church teaches and still remain Catholic since I'm not declared otherwise (when in today's "unique" that will never happen). TOTALLY STUPID!

      There are ignorant people of good will probably in the SSPX but you can say the same for people in the Novus ordo who really think they are practicing the Catholic Faith. The point is, we are not talking about them but the clergy who run it (who have no excuse as pointed out above)

      I agree let's fight Bergoglio and help convert the SSPX. Let's not make up our own rules like them because the times are unique.

      Delete
    8. @anonymous5:58
      What’s TOTALLY STUPID is your spin on what I wrote. Is the SSPX in actual communion with the V2 sect? No! You correctly stated so yourself.
      Do they assent to any of the heresies Of V2? No! They DENY non-Catholic sects are a means of salvation, etc. Is their inconsistency between what they profess and do? Yes! Just like Fr. C and the SSPV with the New Rites Of Holy Week.

      Should we thereby avoid all priests trying to maintain the Faith they profess? Are they all heretics? Soon you may be Home Alone. Count real theologians and me out.


      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. I'm not advocating that the SSPX should be united to the Vatican II Church. Just saying that if they will call Francis their Pope that they must be united to him and Vatican II teachings instead of rejecting it and recognizing it as the Catholic Church when it's clearly not. Yes I avoid all priests who lie through their teeth, teach heresy, act schismatic because they are wolves in sheep's clothing. I'm almost a home aloner (I only get to Mass once a month or so), but I do believe there are a few true priests and bishops left (even if they be wrong, for we all can be). So long as they don't teach heresy or anything which would not be tolerated by a true pope I'm with them.

      Delete
    10. @anonymous 9:13
      I think you are mistaken and unnecessarily depriving yourself of grace. If you reflect you might want to consider that most R&R do not TEACH heresy, but have mistaken ideas about the papacy and confusing practices. A most common error is confusing the CRIME of heresy with the SIN of heresy.

      Nevertheless, I will not do like so many others and pontificate about what you MUST do as if I had Magisterial authority. Pray and do what your conscience tells you on disputed matters.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    11. You say that the R&R and SSPX don't teach heresy. I'll list their heresies for you: #1 They deny the Church is one in Faith #2 They deny all four Marks of the Church as the other anonymous pointed out above #3 They reject the actual laws of the Church such as Canon 1325 and 188.4. Pope Pius IX already condemned their position when he said “And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, ONE CAN WITHHOLD ASSENT AND OBEDIENCE to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church…Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and EVIL OPINIONS and DOCTRINES severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” (Quanta Cura, Dec 8, 1864.). It sounds like you are the one pontificating against true pontiffs and who confuse sin of heresy with crime of heresy. The Novus Ordo have more of a right to be Catholic than the SSPX. The SSPX are literally a cult within a cult and it's a shame you can't see this.

      Delete
    12. I don’t defend the R&R position. Ask an SSPX priest if he agrees with what Pope Pius IX will say, “Yes”! Then it will die a death of a thousand qualifications as to why they (allegedly) are not violating it.

      The V2 sect has more of a right to be called Catholic than misguided R&R? Anyone who can maintain that with a straight face has lost his faith or his marbles. Possibly both. I’ll stand with Fr Stepanich and Fr DePauw.

      Over and out,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    13. Many Novus Ordos also claim to follow all the popes and teachings as well (Scott Hahn, Tim Staples to name a few) but in practice the don't. Are they mistaken? Yes Are they Catholic? No. You have the same problem everybody else has. You won't question Frs. Stepanich and Depauw but when it comes to popes the SSPX can in practice reject what they claim to follow and you are okay with that. I wonder about you

      Delete
    14. Try again. Hahn professes heresy As does everyone in actual union with the Vatican II sect.
      Hahn states, “Jews renewed their covenant through Passover sacrifice?" The Church infallibly teaches the Old Covenant is now revoked.

      This same heresy is taught by Bergoglio in Evangelii Gaudium para. # 247

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    15. Introibo - “Jews renewed their covenant through Passover sacrifice”. What in the world does Hahn mean by that statement? Can you explain as I never heard that before? Thanks!!

      Delete
    16. Joann,
      He means that the Old Covenant is still in effect!

      You can read him discussing it here:
      http://old.post-gazette.com/nation/20020814catholicsjews0814p4.asp

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    17. You completely missed the point. You said the SSPX would claim they would follow Pius IX therefore you concluded they professed the faith. Scott Hahn also claims to follow all the pope's teachings, councils etc. and he doesn't which you rightly pointed out. I've also pointed out how the SSPX in practice do not profess the Catholic Faith. Do you not know that a formal heretic is known by his DEEDS and OMISSIONS according to the canonist? The SSPX are formal heretics by their deeds. They do not profess the Catholic Faith. YOU ARE WRONG. P.S. you aren't friends with John Salza are you?

      Delete
    18. Am I friends with Salza? No, I still think he’s a Mason. See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/01/double-agent.html?m=1

      I understand Merkelbach, et al, talk about heresy through “signs, deeds, and omissions.” An example would be praying at the tomb of Mohammed (kissing the Koran if you’re Wojtyla). It’s not analogous to using the Old Rites Of Holy Week because of wrong arguments about cessation of law. Nor is it the same to be mistaken about loss of office and keeping the Faith while “resisting” the so-called “pope.”

      Soon you’ll be Home Alone with the last six real Catholics on a farm trying to elect a “pope.”

      You’re not friends with Teresa Benns are you?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    19. Why do you keep bringing up Holy week by Fr. C? We are talking about whether the SSPX professes the faith. You understand Merkelbach, Pius IX but still recognize the SSPX as Catholics.

      I'm not arguing like a home aloner but you do argue like John Salza.

      Delete
    20. @anonymous6:09
      Fr.C is analogous to SSPX. He says that the Pian Rite Of Holy Week was given by a True Pope so it can’t be heretical or evil. However, in his arguments and practice, he demonstrates they somehow are evil or inferior. You are talking about whether the SSPX professes the Faith. The post was about Una Cum specifically.

      I’m not defending or a proponent of the R&R—SSPX or otherwise. They CAN be approached for Mass when there is no other option, and their Holy Viaticum is not somehow “tainted with evil” such that in danger of death you cannot receive It.

      You’re closer to Home Alone than you realize.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    21. In that case Fr. C has a problem just like the SSPX and is condemned by Quanta Cura. You said they professed the integral Catholic faith but just "mistakenly" which is another way of defending them as Catholics. If they can be approached for the sacraments then the Eastern Orthodox Schismatics can also be approached when nothing else is around. If you and your readers want to take that chance then go ahead. I will stay at home and go to Catholic priest when I can (and I do go).

      Delete
    22. No. Even if I concede they are heretical, UNDECLARED heretics could be approached for the Sacraments, not so with Eastern Schismatics. Excommunicated clerics can be approached as Fr Stepanich correctly noted in his article.

      There is an unprecedented 60 year papal vacancy. It’s hard to make one’s Catholic way through these perilous times. Some of the greatest clerics were confused and confusion remains. Glad you’ve got it all worked out perfectly!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  7. Since the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, why must Traditionalists be split up with various names such as Recognize and Resist and Sedevacantist, etc., Why can’t Traditionalists refer to themselves as Catholic? All these various names lend credence to a nefarious split in Church unity which is contrary to the 4 marks of the Church. The Novus Ordites have no qualms referring to themselves as being Catholic when in fact they are a counter-Church pretending to be Catholic. When will the real Catholics stand up and acknowledge their True Catholicity and stop the divisiveness with the various titles and names? There is strength in unity!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      I agree there is unity in strength, but I’d like to make two observations.

      1. When someone asks me “What’s your religion?” Or “Are you Catholic?” I respond, “I’m a Traditionalist.” The question I ALWAYS get asked next is, “What’s a Traditionalist?” That enables me to discuss the True Faith, explain why Frankie isn’t pope and proselytize! If I said, “I’m Catholic.” They would think I’m a member of the V2 sect that stole our Churches and falsely appropriated our name ! That’s why “Traditionalist” means True Catholic and is a great tool to convert others.

      2. Unity must never come at the expense of truth, and I know you understand that Joann. R&R must come to the Sedevacantist solution so we can have the unity needed to elect a real pope!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo - My experiences with people asking my religion has been different than yours. When asked my religion I say “Traditional Catholic” and the responses I have gotten are “so you are one of those” to “Traditional Catholics are on the fringe”.

      I realize that unity can never be sacrificed for truth. Can you please explain how we can elect a real Pope? Thanks!

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      There are two possibilities. If SEDEPRIVATIONISM (a form of sedevacatism) is true, then Bergoglio is a "material pope" who will become a real pope if and when he renounces his heresy publicly, professes the Catholic Faith, and gets valid orders. I'm inclined to think this is improbable.

      For sedevacantism (properly so-called), many theologians wondered how to get a pope back in similar situations. Theologian Van Noort, for example, wrote in 1956 about a hypothetical situation in which the Communists planted a hydrogen bomb in the Vatican during a meeting of all the world's cardinals (without exception). The bomb obliterates Pope Pius XII and the entire corpus of Cardinals. What happens now? First, the clergy of Rome get the right to elect the pope. If they were all wiped out in the blast too, it devolves to the Bishops of the Church to elect a pope in an "imperfect general council."

      All valid Traditionalist bishops (SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc) would have to recognize the fact Bergoglio is not pope. They would then have to stop bickering and work together to read the theologians about the workings of an imperfect general council. Such a council could validly elect a pope.

      BTW, don't let the ignorant remarks get to you. If the world hates us we must be doing something right!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo, I think you are wrong. I have read that the responsibility for electing a pope in an imperfect council devolves to the clergy of Rome- NOT the "bishops of the Church." Am I mistaken or are you mistaken? Thanks.

      Delete
    5. You are correct. However, if the clergy of Rome is wiped out, it then can be handled by the bishops.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Wait a second Introibo. Is this your opinion or are you quoting another theologian? We should be very precise lest we end up making stuff up like the Dimond brothers and others. Where exactly do you read that if the clergy of Rome is wiped out that it can be handled by the bishops? Source please.

      Delete
    7. I’m quoting. First it goes to the clergy of Rome.
      The basis of this solution is that the pope is pope because he is bishop of Rome. The cardinals are considered to be the chief clergy of Rome. In their absence, the remaining clergy of Rome become competent to elect their bishop, who, in virtue of being bishop of Rome, will be pope.

      Next, an imperfect general council, i.e. a council of all the world’s bishops, which however is called “imperfect” because no council is fully general in the absence of the pope and of course the absence of the pope is in this case the very reason for summoning the council. The basis of this solution is that in the absence of the pope the bishops are the highest authority in the Church
      According to Theologian Bellarmine:
      “If there were no pontifical constitution in force concerning the election of the sovereign pontiff, or if by some mishap all the legally designated electors, i.e. all the cardinals, perished together, the right of election would belong to the neighbouring bishops and the Roman clergy, but with a certain dependence on a general council of bishops.” (Bellarmine: De Clericis, Lib. X, cap. x)

      See also Theologian Franzelin: De Ecclesia, Thesis XIII, scholion for the idea of bishops in an imperfect general council in the absence of Roman clergy.

      Please be assured I don’t “make things up.” I always have citations. If something is my personal opinion, I always say so.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. But we should always remember, theologians themselves are not authority. They too offer opinions. Yes, their opinions carry much higher weight then any of ours, yet it seems few of them ever foresaw a situation we find ourselves in at the moment. An entire church in apostasy save for a few souls who cling to tradition. No one, to my knowledge, of any significant church standing has outlined how we are to recover and restore the Church after such an apostasy.

      Delete
    9. Tom,
      One who tried is Theologian des Lauries And Sedeprivationism. But it is still a theory. That’s why we need unity to find the answer in correctly holding an imperfect general council!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    10. It's my opinion sedeprivationism explains the 60 plus year interregnum.
      Our Priest and Bishop hold the sedevacantist opinion.

      Delete
    11. You might be correct. The solution has yet to be resolved, and Our Lord may return before then. God will reveal the answer one way or another!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    12. You don't need unity to hold the imperfect council. The purpose of the council is to restore unity.

      Delete
    13. That’s correct in one sense, but we would need all the bishops participating and not refusing to take part.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    14. What happens when one or more Bishops split off from a traditional Catholic church after an imperfect council?
      Someone somewhere would do or say something wrong & 5 kinds of chaos would happen.
      Then we'd have a sedevacante of a sedevacante.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    15. @Andrew
      First, we must have all bishops participating and agreeing upon the rules as set forth by the theologians. (A near impossible task in and of itself). When a new pope is recognized, we end Sedevacantism. Any bishop who leaves would be non-Catholic just like Bishop Duarte-Costa who was solemnly excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1945.

      It will take GOD’S INTERVENTION to make it happen with Traditionalist bishop infighting!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    16. Would the bishops be committing sin if Thuc Lefevbre & Mendez bishops conditionally crossed Ordained/Consecrated each other?

      Delete
    17. In my opinion, no. It is necessitated to remove the needless doubts some hold and move forward.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    18. IMO,conditional Holy Orders (cross Ordination/Consecration) is NOT a problem.
      They didn't receive Holy Orders via Papal Mandate so it's not as if they're denying Apostolic Succession.
      ALSO,in this 50 plus year emergency,the possibility of consolidating all the lines of Bishops so absolutely no one can deny their validity sounds great.

      Delete
    19. At the end of the day it is a political issue rather than a doctrinal issue to elect a Pope. For this reason six neighbors in a Kansas kitchen is not accepted as legitimate. A few dozen trad clergy may have better luck. It will always fall on human acceptance as to the validity of a papal election and not canonical theories. We know with certitude that Jorge Bergolio cannot be a Pope. So I for one would urge the sedes to get together, bury the hatchet and elect a Pope.

      Delete
    20. @anonymous 10:17
      I agree!!

      @Tom
      I agree with most of what you say. However, doctrine is involved, not just politics. Six people in a Kansas farmhouse isn’t merely “political” but doctrinally wrong.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    21. Introibo, I believe a great article for you would be to examine what we know of the first few papal elections while the Apostles still lived.

      Delete
    22. Tom,
      A great suggestion! It will take me a lot of time to research, but it oils be worth it!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. Many of the SSPX priests have not been conditionally reordained. This is a fact, so you have a problem right there. I was personally told by one of them that the Novus Ordo fake mass is perfectly valid, so you see, if a concilliar priest decides he wants to say the Latin Mass at the SSPX, they will not always reconditonally ordain him. This is a sad fact. The SSPX needs to be avoided all together. They continue with the evil transitional Missal of John XXIII, and today do not even celebrate the Feast of St, Peter in Chains, for example.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s a sad fact. I don’t know exactly how many are invalidly ordained in the V2 sect, but they must be avoided. I don’t see any heresy however, in the 1962 Missal (which they retain some rubrics from the Pian Missal!).

      The issue under discussion is a validly ordained priest who offers the Traditional Mass, is not in actual union with Bergoglio, yet mentions his name in the Canon. Obviously, I agree that you must ask the SSPX priest by whom he was ordained. If he’s invalid from the V2 sect (and never conditionally ordained in the true Rite) he is a mere layman and must be avoided.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. What about that sacraments are presumed valid?

      Delete
    3. @StephenMocki:
      You’re leaving out the important part”... as long as the CATHOLIC RITE WAS USED.”
      The post-V2 Rites are all invalid with few exceptions.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  9. Came across an article on Francis Schuckart being the first sedevacantist Bishop in the U.S. Don’t hear much about him but I understand he consecrated others. After reading the below article it makes one wonder regarding sedevacantism if Schuckart was one of its first proponents.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis Schuckart

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was one of the first Sedevacantists. Unfortunately, he became involved in cult-like behavior. It wasn’t until he was purged that the CMRI became Traditionalist. There is much wrong with him.

      Thank you for the information!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Fr. Saenz y Arriaga is also one of the first to go public. He was from Mexico and wrote a book called the New Montinian Church. Good stuff

      Delete
    3. Absolutely! I think he might have been the very first to go public with Sedevacantism.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  10. As usual, excellent article, which provides a lot of peace and comfort, at least to me.

    I am not a theologian, nor a canonist, thus, I can only assume that before Pius V and his Quo Primum decree of July 19, 1570, in particular, during the Great Western Schism there was a canon in order to consecrate during Mass. Also, I can only assume that in such canon the priest was required to una cum with the reigning Pope. If at that time there were contradicting opinions between Catalina of Siena on one side, and Vicente Ferrer on the other, on who was the true Pope and we follow the opinion that una cum with an Anti-pope is a mortal sin, it would be difficult to explain how both of them were canonized and were declared saints later on by True Popes.

    If it was available where I live a Sedevacantist Traditional Latin Mass, I would, without a doubt, attend such Mass (I assume all the people who have contributed with their opinions above, would). Even when I attend a SSPX Latin Mass, I do so with the intention to NOT be in communion with Bergoglio, as I am NOT in communion with him or with any other heretic and/or schismatic.

    The Romans had a maxim, which I think is true today: “Summum Jus, Summa Injuria” (extreme justice is extreme injustice). I think we cannot focus solely on the exterior, but our intentions are certainly vital to judge a particular situation. Just exactly as what happens with Baptism of Desire, it’s the intention to obey and to be submitted by being genuinely committed to seeking and living by the truth, and implicitly committed to seeking Jesus Christ and living by his commands, what makes the difference. At the end, I think, it is the interior state which should be the determining factor.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well stated my friend!
      Thank you for the kind words and God Bless!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  11. I wish to comment on your remark: "Theology is a science, and theologians work like doctors and lawyers. Those opinions carry significant weight. Fr Cekada is not a theologian or canonist, yet he invents an ever-growing list of offenses and prohibitions."

    I disagree with your remark about Fr Cekada. I think it is both incorrect and unfair. Yes, Sacred Theology is a science, and in fact the highest science, because it has the highest reality, namely God, as its subject. What constitutes a theologian primo per se is the intellectual habit or virtue of the scientific knowledge of God. That intellectual habit means that his mind is illumined by the principles of this science and so sees the necessity of the conclusions demonstrated by this science. Fr Cekada has demonstrated over and over again all the marks of possessing this habit. But someone who possesses the habit of Sacred Theology is a theologian. Therefore, Fr Cekada is a theologian.

    It is quite another thing to talk of the license conferred by Ecclesiastical Authority to teach that a theologian may or may not possess. The late Fr Stepanich, whom you call a real theologian, was accredited with a Doctorate in Sacred Theology. Fr Cekada, as far as I understand, possesses a Bachelor’s Degree in Sacred Theology and has for years taught Sacred Theology and Canon Law to seminarians. Are you implying that he cannot be “a real theologian” simply because he does not possess a doctorate in Sacred Science? Fr Stepanich earned his degree many years before the Vatican II era. Fr Cekada, on the other hand, was ordained a priest in 1977. Even if he had the time or if his then superiors had the inclination, where could he have undertaken doctoral studies without jeopardizing his faith? The Angelicum, the Gregorian, the Urban, the Lateran universities of Rome, Fribourg, Le Saulchoir, the Catholic University of Washington? By 1977 all the great former Catholic universities and colleges (and all the lesser institutes too) were already for a number of years thoroughly in the hands of the Modernists and under their complete control. Had he obtained a doctorate from one of these institutes, Father Cekada could be forgiven for thinking that the degree would not have been worth the paper on which the degree was notified.

    A consequence of this is that if people are equating being a competent theologian with possessing an advanced degree in Sacred Theology, in the current age in which we live it will be impossible to find a Catholic and orthodox and competent theologian, and such a view would sin against the Providence of God. Previously, a doctorate in Sacred Theology carried a certain credibility as credentials of lengthy and systematic instruction and study and supervision at the hands of Catholic professors of Sacred Theology. Nowadays, that does not happen for Traditional Catholics. We are fortunate that a handful of seminaries carry on with working to form Catholic priests, but as far as Catholic higher institutes go we must accept at present that they are a thing of the past.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s my point—there can be no more approved theologians and canonists in this age of the Great Apostasy. Remember, too, what constitutes an "approved theologian": Clerics of eminent learning, and orthodoxy in doctrine, at least as insofar their writings are used by the faithful and in seminaries, with the knowledge of (and with no opposition from) the hierarchy and the Holy See. (See, e.g,. theologian Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB, [1955]).

      We have no pope and no hierarchy with Ordinary jurisdiction. Fr. Stepanich and Fr DePauw both received their doctorates pre-V2 with a real pope and published dissertations declared free from error. They also taught at seminaries approved by the Holy See and the Bishops.

      Fr. Cekada has none of this, nor could he as he was but 13 years old in 1964. Ergo, he is NOT an approved theologian or canonist.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. Conceded that in signified act it is impossible to be a theologian for the reasons we have both stated. That it is impossible to be a theologian in exercised act at present, I deny. Were it impossible, then no seminaries could presume to teach Sacred Theology to seminarians and no priest should presume to speak or write on any subject touching on Sacred Theology.
    Patently, this is not the case. The Church continues to function, even if it is a period of great apostasy from the Faith (which certainly it is). As you say, She cannot accredit theologians as She has done under normal conditions, but that does not mean that sound and competent theologians no longer exist. Thank God, they do exist and continue to teach as they have always done throughout the ages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Church continues to function but without APPROVED theologians who meet the rigorous requirements. That’s not to say that priests (and now even laity like myself) can’t write on Sacred Theology. None of them (myself included) is a theologian. Priests of the SSPV, CMRI, etc are priests in time of necessity. They meet the minimum requirements to function. There’s a big difference (to use an example) between being a licensed medical doctor, and someone trained in First Aid.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  13. I believe one can attend the mass of any validly ordained priest who uses the Catholic rite so long as the priest is not known to be a public heretic.

    The Conciliar Church has never been declared to be a sect. We need a Pope to authoritatively settle the matter of V2, it’s Popes and laws. Until this happens, all we rely on is our own private non-authoritative judgment.

    It’s an act of schism to cut off communion with other Catholics. Its a sad truth that the sedevacantists have been moving in this direction. While I believe the V2 so called popes are not popes, I will not pretend that laypeople or priests can usurp the authority of the Church and with authority declare Catholics as members of a sect, when that sect is not a recognized sect.

    It’s a slippery slope into schism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My friend,
      No one has authoritatively declared the local abortion doctor a murderer, but that’s what he is regardless. You believe the post-V2 “popes” are not popes. That’s good. If they’re not popes, then anyone who follows their laws is not following Catholic law. The Sacraments emanating from them are not Catholic and therefore their validity is rightfully dubious.

      How can V2 not be a sect? There may be some members who think they are Catholic and wish to be so. Only God can judge them in the internal forum. In the external forum, they are non-Catholics.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  14. Sir, there is a difference between a Catholic who is not knowingly a heretic and a abortion doctor. In the latter case, the abortion doctor violates the natural law as well as Divine positive law.

    A Catholic who either unknowingly adheres to an undeclared sect that claims to be the Catholic Church or remains in communion with Catholics in this situation, neither commits heresy or schism. We are not dealing with a sect that is known as a sect by the Church.

    I concede that there is a sect. My point is that the existence of the sect has not been made known by the authority, meaning that no one who is baptized and professes to be Catholic can be presumed to be a member of this sect. Until the Church authoritatively settles the matter, every Catholic must be taken on a case by case basis, as to who is or is not a member of the undeclared sect.

    In order to make such an accusation against any particular person, evidence must be presented, orherwise the accusation is rash. Even if a compelling case is presented against accused person X, no other Catholic is bound to accept the conclusion, prior to the judgment of authority.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are manifold problems with what you state. For example, are the members of the Palmar de Troya fiasco “Catholic”? They came into existence in 1976, and even had Archbishop Thuc believing them for a short time. Without a pope, at what point do we stop presuming good faith? The further we get from the Great Apostasy, the harder it becomes to think such people—even R&R —remain in good faith.

      Does the V2 sect espouse heresy? Yes. (It becomes MUCH harder in R&R because they don’t espouse heresy but their actions could be deemed heretical).

      According to Theologian Szal, “Christians who were born and educated in heresy or Schism, as long as they remain in good faith, are not bound by the penalties of heretics or Schismatics in the internal forum in view of all lack of obstinacy on their part; however, if they are converted to the True Faith after they have reached the age of fourteen years, they need absolution in the external forum, since in consequence of the rule expressed in Canon 2200, sec 2, they are presumed bound by the censure.” (See “The Communication Of Catholics with Schismatics” [1948], pg. 12).

      This seems the proper and reasonable answer otherwise anyone who claims to be “Catholic,” no matter how far off the mark (think: Richard Ibranyi) must be presumed as such. When we had a pope, what you stated would certainly be true, but after a 60 year Vacancy can it still hold without dire consequences? I think not.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  15. Sir,

    Thank you for the discussion. I think you misunderstood me. I never said we could not make a judgment against others, only that it must be taken on a case by case basis.

    I think most that identify as traditional Catholics were once attendees at the Novus Ordo. To follow your logic, that attendance means that they were members of the sect, then such people remain outside of the Church until they formally re-enter Her as specified by the Code, through a formal abjuration. But, I am not aware of any traditional Catholics that have made the abjuration in accordance with the Code, so if this were true, sll of these people would still be outside the Church.

    Regarding the Palms de Troya group, I would still give each person the benefit of the doubt that they were acting in good faith. The Church has not yet excommunicated their leaders and by that made clear that they are a sect.

    Regarding Ibrabyi, he is a case in point of what I mean by making a judgment prior to the Church. His words and actions demonsratre his guilt, but even in his case, other Catholics are within their rights to disagree, and even I am hesitant to make a certain judgment about him, as to his pertinacity. I would rather warn others about him and his errors without making any final judgment about him, and report him to the Church once things return to normal.

    To say otherwise is to say that one has authority to make a binding judgment that other Catholics must adhere to prior to the judgment of the Church.

    Example to illustrate: John Smith attends St. Mary’s, a Novus Ordo parish. John Smith has never publicly stated any heresy and has not in any way indicated he wishes to separate from the Pope by withdrawing communion with him. What evidence would you have that Mr. Smith has left the Church, is no longer a member, and if he returns, that he must make a formal abjuration as specified by the Code?

    Secondly, your friend Jack, who goes to your Church, also knows Mr. Smith. Jack disagrees with your judgment that Mr. Smith is outside the Church, as he does not believe Mr. Smith is pertinacious. Do you believe your judgment about Mr. Smith is binding on Jack, that he must believe you? Why or why not?

    Am I missing something or is this representative of your position?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we are close to agreement. My point is as follows:

      I was baptized as an infant in 1965. The Baptism was valid, but I was a member of the Vatican II sect, at least in the external forum. Ditto for my parents. My parents should have known better (as they admitted in the 1980s after returning to the One True Church). I was guiltless. By the grace of God, I found my way into the Church at age 16, and my parents followed suit shortly thereafter.

      Fr DePauw had me sign the Professsion of the Catholic Faith and the Anti-Modernist Oath. I was not to participate in the V2 sect ever again. Ditto for my parents. He did think some abjuration in the external forum was necessary.

      The very fact you are a Sedevacantist means you are making a judgement regarding the legitimacy of Bergoglio. Can you “enforce” that judgement? In the same sense you can “enforce” your belief in the Immaculate Conception. Not with declaring those who deny it vitandus, but treating them as heretics (which they are). Traditionalist priests must deny them Communion. What about R&R? They are mistaken as to the identity of the pope and profess the Integral Catholic Faith.

      Do I have a right to declare someone who denies the Immaculate Conception a heretic? Yes. Can I excommunicate them? No. Is my judgement binding? It’s not “my” judgement—it is a rejection of Church dogma.

      As to John Smith, he HAS stated heresy. If he submits to Bergoglio he submits to his judgements and evil laws (1983 Code, etc). So in the external forum he is a heretic. In the internal forum he may be within the Church. THAT one I do not know.

      So if Jack thinks John is within the Church in the external forum he is wrong. Neither Jack nor I know if he is in the Church as to the internal forum.

      If THIS is what you mean by “on a case by case basis,” then we agree.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  16. I think it is important that every term be defined clearly, and once that is done, we will probably agree, I hope :).

    I would contest your assertion that you and your parents had lost your membership in the Church. That fact should be proven, not assumed. If one leaves the Catholic Church to join a sect, one must knowingly do so, he must be aware that he is leaving the Catholic Church, and by that giving up his membrtship in the Church and from that point forward become a member of the sect.

    Did you or your parents make such a choice? Did you or your parents say, “I am leaving the Catholic Church and I am becoming a member of the Conciliar Church?” If not, then it is clear that neither you or your parents ceased being members of the Church.

    I think it is great that you discovered the reality of a new undeclared sect at age 16 that existed side by side with the Catholic Church, but your discovery of this sect does not mean that you were a member of it.

    If it was true that you were a member of a non-Catholic sect, then the recitation of the formal abjuration as proscribed by canon law would have been necessary to re-enter the Church.

    I have and continue to have formed a judgment about Francis, and the other so called papal claimants beginning with Paul VI. Where I differ from other so called sedevacantists is that I will not extend that judgment to every other baptized soul that claims to be Catholic, who mistakenly believed in the papal claims of these men. I recognize that we are dealing with an undeclared sect, and that Catholics must be presumed innocent of having joined this sect, unless it can be proven in a case by case basis that they have knowingly left the Church to join the new sect.

    Let me ask you, if adherence to Paul VI meant that one was automatically a member of the new sect created by him, then where was the Catholic Church in late December of 1965?

    I cannot enforce my judgment about Francis, that he is a heretic and not a pope. I have no authority to bind others. The authority to bind remains only with the Pope and the hierarchical bishops.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me repeat: According to Theologian Szal, “Christians who were born and educated in heresy or Schism, as long as they remain in good faith, are not bound by the penalties of heretics or Schismatics in the internal forum in view of all lack of obstinacy on their part; however, if they are converted to the True Faith after they have reached the age of fourteen years, they need absolution in the external forum, since in consequence of the rule expressed in Canon 2200, sec 2, they are presumed bound by the censure.” (See “The Communication Of Catholics with Schismatics” [1948], pg. 12)

      There is no distinction made between declared and undeclared heretics And Schismatics. What I discovered at age 16 was the True Church.

      Once more, my parents may have been Catholic in the INTERNAL FORUM—and myself as well. In the EXTERNAL FORUM we belonged to a sect—the V2 sect.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Sir, the point you are not seeing is that your parents didn’t become Lutherans or Anglicans, both of which were known sects.

      The Conciliar sect set itself up side by side with the Catholic Church, and very cleverly masqueraded itself to in fact be the Cstholoc Church.

      I look forward to reading from you where you believe the Catholic Church was in late 1965. The question should help you see through this fog created by the sectarian sedevacantists. I am not asking to trap you, only to provoke critical thinking on your part.

      Delete
    3. The Church was with those who rejected the heresy. Fr Des Laurier, Fr DePauw, Bp. Kurz, etc. Did not the Church begin on Pentecost with less than 100 people? Please don’t respond with the “no visibility” argument. That would take a whole post and is greatly misunderstood.

      Critical thinking is what I do for a living and I’ve been around as a Traditionalist (1981) longer than most, and learned from the best (Fr DePauw)

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  17. Regarding the Immaculate Concepcion, I am not an authorized teacher in the Church, so one does not have to learn from me, but they still must believe it, as the truth has been taught by the Pope, who all baptized souls must believe.

    Your judgment against someone that has denied the Immaculate Concepion is still your judgment. No one has to agree with you. Someone else might say, “he didn’t really deny the Immaculate Concepcion, he just explains it differently,” or another might say, “he’s just a rambling idiot who doesn’t mean it (meaning no pertinacity).” There could be countless other possibilities, but I’m sure you get the point.

    If a priest is aware of a person who claims to be Catholic, but is a pertinacious heretic who denies a teaching of the Church, then, yes, I agree that he has the right and duty to deny that person Holy Comminion. But, all facts, as to the crime and to the accused person’s pertinacity, must be clear and known prior to making such judgment.

    The R&R people are not heretics, schismatics, apostates, or members of a sect, so they must be regarded as Catholics. I have never seen any coherent case made against them as a group proving that they have left the Church.

    Regarding John Smith, I have already said that he does not profess any heresy, so why draw the conclusion that he does? Heresy is the pertinacious denial of a dogma. If John Smith goes to the Novus Ordo and accepts the 1983 Code, what dogma is he automatically denying from those facts? I think it is worth mentioning that heresy must be direct. If a logical inference can be derived from ones words or actions that may demonstrate that the person might be a heretic, that is not the same as demonstrating heresy. Its also worth noting that in justice and charity we are obliged to excuse others of guilt as far as is reasonably possible before forming a moral certainty of guilt.

    Regarding the internal forum, I am not concerned. In this discussion, we are only dealing with membership in the Church, not attachment to the Church. We are dealing with membership and how it is lost, whether this applies to our situation, and if so how it applies.

    Regarding Jack, whether he is right or wrong is immaterial. Let me draw this out more. No person can bind Jack to their judgment about another person’s status as a heretic or sectarian, except his diocesan bishop or the pope. If Jack says. “I do not believe Father X who is under no censure from the Church and has not joined a known sect, is validly ordained and uses the Catholic rite, is a heretic or sectarian, and I want to go to his mass sometimes,” then he is within his rights, even if he is objectively wrong about Fr. X. No unauthorized person can claim authority over Jack to bind his conscience as to their judgment about Fr. X. To do otherwise and bind Jack by stating that he must believe and obey you would be a usurpation of the power given only to the Divinely Commissioned Hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R&R are not outside the Church and I have never stated such.

      If you are in union with Bergoglio then you accept that John Paul the Great Apostate is a “saint.” That atheists can go to Heaven, and there is no Catholic God. If you can’t see the heresy on those, take the blinders off.

      Compare what the 1917 Code Of Canon Law says in Canon 732, sec 2:
      It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church.

      According to Canonists Abbo and Hannon, the Divine Law requires the greatest care in administering the Sacraments and hence the prohibition. (See The Sacred Canons, 1:739).

      Canon 844 sec 3 (1983) states:
      Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

      How can a Schismatic be “properly disposed”?

      By participating in the Novus Bogus John Smith takes part in an invalid, non-Catholic bread and wine service.

      Theologians and canonists teach heresy is shown” dictis vel factis “ not only in words, but also in “signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.” (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746.)

      Furthermore, as Abbo and Hannon comment on Canon 2200, sec 2 (1917)which deals with heresy: “...whenever an external violation of the law occurs, IN THE EXTERNAL FORUM the existence of malice is PRESUMED until the CONTRARY IS PROVED, because in the ordinary case man acts knowingly and freely” (See The Sacred Canons 2:788).

      The presumption is the opposite of what you profess and American civil law: You are guilty until proven innocent.

      There are some difficult cases, no question. In those cases where there is no CLEAR indication of heresy, one should be considered Catholic. In your made-up Bizzaro world, I can deny the divinity of Christ, set myself up as a prophet, and because I call myself “Catholic,” you must presume that I am such in the external forum until guilt is proven.

      Finally, for someone who is adamant that “we can’t bind others”—aren’t you, de facto, trying to bind me to your opinion in this matter? If so, you violate the law of non-contradiction and are a hypocrite. If not—leave me alone :-)

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. “If you are in union with Bergoglio then you accept that John Paul the Great Apostate is a “saint.” That atheists can go to Heaven, and there is no Catholic God. If you can’t see the heresy on those, take the blinders off. ”

      Logically, if you accept Francis and the others, through a multi step reasoning process of where that leads, it would force you to accept heretical propositions.

      I am not talking about a multi- step process which many do not follow, at least not those who have kept their Faith. I am only speaking here of those who have actually denied a dogma. They are heretics according to the definition of the term.

      You may accuse someone ch people who believe in Francis but do not deny any teaching of the Church of being illogical and inconsistent, but you cannot in justice acccuse then of heresy I less they are denying a dogma of the Faith.

      Delete
    3. They are denying the unicity of the Church and Her necessity for salvation. The CHURCH (not me) PRESUMES GUILT. Multi-step process? Please. You accept Bergoglio as your pope and submit to his teachings. You therefore agree that there is no Catholic God. Such is presumed.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. I disagree. You are forcing a conclusion that is not there. Ask any SSPX person if they believe there is no Catholic God and you will see that you are incorrect. You are attributing to then a conclusion that they do not believe.

      Delete
    5. “The presumption is the opposite of what you profess and American civil law: You are guilty until proven innocent. ”.

      I do not disagree with this. Canon law unlike American law presumes guilt. The trouble is in ou case that you have not proven that a crime even exists. You owe it to the accused to name the person and state which dogma they are denying, along with proof. This is a matter of justice. To say someone is a heretic when they are not denying a dogma is rash and sinful. I would urge you to read the catechism on the eighth Commandment.

      Delete
    6. I suggest you read up on basic logic. You want to bind me to your opinion that others can’t bind you to their opinion.

      Read the Ottaviani Intervention. The Novus Bogus is non-Catholic. Does John Smith participate in it? If yes, there’s your sign.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. SSPX is not in union with Bergoglio. A distinction with a real difference.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. They explicitly state otherwise. Why not write them and ask them?

      Delete
    9. I am not attempting to bind you, only help you out of this rabbit hole. That is my only intent. I thought it possible to assist you due to the fact that you see through the fallicies of those who push the non Una Cum position. This tells me that you might be ready to go further and see how deep the error of these people goes and free yourself from all of it.

      You do not have to believe me, I am not an authorized teacher in the Church. i am convinced of what I am saying, that theology, canon law and logic supppor it, but as you rightly state, I cannot impose it upon you.

      Delete
    10. Yes. And it’s getting more and more difficult to see R&R as Catholic. Theology, logic and reason go the other direction. They have a man they recognize as pope yet refuse submission because THEY decide what is and isn’t correct. That’s NOT Catholic theology. They even set up marriage tribunals that will decide if a Vatican II sect annulment is valid. So there is a pope and bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction (so they claim) yet THEY WILL CHECK THE MAGISTERIUM TO SEE IF THEY GOT IT RIGHT!!! Oh boy!

      Due to the massive confusion in the wake of Vatican II, I go easy on those who want to stay Catholic and reject V2. However, 60 years later, the excuses are running thin.

      Although I don’t believe Una Cum is the huge evil it’s made out to be by some, as theologian Stepanich notes, it is not ideal and not to be taken lightly. R&R is a dead end. They are to be avoided whenever possible and there may come a time I stop recognizing THEM. Catholics obey the pope, not form a competing Magisterium.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  18. Commentary on Canpn 2314:

    “A sect means a religious society established in opposition to the Church whether it consist of infidels, pagans, Jews, Muslims, non-Catholics, or schismatics. To become a member of such a society (nomen dare) means to inscribe one's name on its roster. Of course it is presumed that the new member knows it is a non-Catholic society, otherwise he would not incur the censure. If he hears of the censure after he has become a member, and promptly severs his connection, the penalty is not incurred. (Rev. Charles Augustine, O.S.B, D.D., A Commentary On The New Code Of Canon Law, Vol. VIII, 279-280, 1922,)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Under normal circumstances this is correct. However, you can’t escape the profession of heresy as I described above in Canon Law.

      Canonist Augustine wasn’t envisioning the Great Apostasy—and it doesn’t matter for heresy is presumed.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Sir, that is the current law of the Catholic Church. There are two issues at hand here, (1) what constitutes joining a non-Catholic sect, (2) what makes one a heretic according to the law.

      There is no need to make a profession of faith to rejoin the Church unless you actually left the Church to begin with.

      Delete
    3. 1. This is irrelevant in light of number 2.

      2. The sin of heresy is PRESUMED upon heretical signs, deeds, and profession of such. See Canon 2200 and commentary by Canonists Abbo and Hannon

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Then name the persons you are accusing, and what signs, deeds or profession you have witnessed that directly (and let me be clear, I am stating directly for a reason) implicates the person as a heretic.

      Delete
    5. Does the person participate in the Novus Bogus? Read the Ottaviani Intervention. There’s your sign (one of many).

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. It’s not proof of heresy. Even Ottaviani himself recognized Paul VI. Doesn’t that tell you something about your system?

      Delete
    7. Yes. It tells me that Ottaviani wasn’t prepared to accept the consequences of what he wrote.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  19. If a Bishop was ordained by Bp.Carmona and consecrated by one of the Bishops who were consecrated by Duarte-Costa himself,would this Bishop and his successive priests be valid like Thuc Lefevbre and Mendez lines?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As long as the Traditional Rite was used by the Duarte Costa bishop, it would be valid.

      —-Introibo

      Delete