Sedevacantists and "Una Cum" [SSPX] Masses

[Caminus]

This is a must-read for all the sedevacantists in this forum. Other traditional catholics could study it as well, even if just to see its 'errors.'

Here it is:

The Grain of Incense:

Sedevacantists and Una Cum Masses.

This should serve for informational purposes. I do not wish to start a debate on sedevacantism. There are very healthy debates that could ensue from this newly published article. It was written by one of the finest living theologians in the Church today! Happy reading.

I think John Lane has, in a few short words, managed to pull the carpet right out from under poor Fr. Cekada.

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=594&sid=527111d3a61320134292db63cbee5c7e

[takeiteasy]

Another fine example of Fr. Cekada pulling by all kind of quotes from theological manuals (while he does not even hold a PhD himself) from before the deviated Council, and making the impression of a "fine Catholic article". But it is nót.

It is again his own polemical opinion, and I can tell you, that by the same reasoning we can condemn St. Vincent Ferrer to hell, because he assisted only at Masses (in the 14th century) offered in union with the "popes" of Avignon (declared illegitimate later on), and he claimed they were the true pontiffs of the Holy Roman Church.

Fr. Cekada is way exaggerating. More and more sedevacantists seem to be making their own fallible opinions into "Magisterial morality encyclicals". And Fr. Cekada surely lacks the authority to impose his view. But still he does upon his own "sedevacantist faithful".

These men do not even wánt the Roman Chair to be undoubtedly "occupied" by a valid Pope in future. Their plays would be out.

But remember, HMiS, if these kind of articles are allowed to proliferate they can do damage by allowing their point of view to be in the open. Not all of these kind of articles can be brushed off as easily as Fr. Cekada's. Some of them are harder. Some can be convincing. There needs to be more Sedeplenist Apologetics available so that people susceptible to new ideas will not take up Sedevacantist ideas.

Hmm...last I heard, for those of you who 'recognize' Ratzinger, neither Sedeplenism or Sedavacantism was acceptable for any person to believe, if they still want to be in "full communion" with Rome. Who are you to say that the Sedeplenist theory is any more or less acceptable for Catholics to believe in than Sedavacantism?

I am by no means endorsing Cekada, Dolan, or Sanborn, however. Their usual way of operation which is: lets  continue with our seminary project and wait for the True Pope to fall out of the sky, is absurd!

Josaphat, you ask "Who are you to say that the Sedeplenist theory is any more or less acceptable for Catholics to believe in than Sedavacantism? "

It is NOT FOR ME TO SAY. I do not say. THIS IS SIMPLY THE POSITION OF THE SOCIETY (and all faithful who are in league with them, all MUST HOLD THIS FACT). Otherwise you are saying the Society is wrong. The Society will NEVER tolerate SV thinking, it will NEVER mention them, endorse their chapels or books, etc.

[takeiteasy]

Another fine example of Fr. Cekada pulling by all kind of quotes from theological manuals (while he does not even hold a PhD himself) from before the deviated Council, and making the impression of a "fine Catholic article". But it is nót.

It is again his own polemical opinion, and I can tell you, that by the same reasoning we can condemn St. Vincent Ferrer to hell, because he assisted only at Masses (in the 14th century) offered in union with the "popes" of Avignon (declared illegitimate later on), and he claimed they were the true pontiffs of the Holy Roman Church.

Fr. Cekada is way exaggerating. More and more sedevacantists seem to be making their own fallible opinions into "Magisterial morality encyclicals". And Fr. Cekada surely lacks the authority to impose his view. But still he does upon his own "sedevacantist faithful".

These men do not even wánt the Roman Chair to be undoubtedly "occupied" by a valid Pope in future. Their plays would be out.

But remember, HMiS, if these kind of articles are allowed to proliferate they can do damage by allowing their point of view to be in the open. Not all of these kind of articles can be brushed off as easily as Fr. Cekada's. Some of them are harder. Some can be convincing. There needs to be more Sedeplenist Apologetics available so that people susceptible to new ideas will not take up Sedevacantist ideas.

Who are you to say that the Sedeplenist theory is any more or less acceptable for Catholics to believe in than Sedavacantism?

I don't know who we are to say what we say, but the sedevacantist position leads to manifest errors, even heresies. It not only assumes an interruption in the petrine succession, contrary to the dogmatic definition of Vatican I, but it also implies not just that the Roman see is vacant, but that every see is vacant, since the bishops were appointed by John XXIII's successors, and the eastern Catholics hierarchs are following Benedict XVI, considered an antipope. Thus under sedevacantism there would be no lawful hierarchy of the Church, contrary to the definitions of Trent.

Now, now, remeber the rules? No discussion of sedavacantism, either pro or con on this forum! My comment was addressing the Sedeplenist theory, and why it could be acceptable to Catholics when according to you Sedavacantism is not. The Sedeplenist theory is in some ways similar to the Sedavacantist theory. I would love to debate many of your errant assumptions about Sedavacantism, but I won't because it is not allowed here. However, what declaration of the magisterium are you using to validate the principles of Sedeplenism?

This was the position of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He had access to information that the rest of us CANNOT EVEN IMAGINE, he was very well networked in the Church. He was well educated in France when he was young. He knew more about the Church as a young man than most adults today. It was his decision. He knew what was happening. He dealt with Pope Paul VI in person, they communicated, there was talk. He declared that the Society MUST take this view. Even in the height of the battle, this declaration was held ABOVE ALL, if you notice he ejected many seminarians, many priests, who held other views. Some held on, but if the views came out (Father Noel Barbara??) they could not be aligned. Noel Barbara went to Rome in 1976 to confront Paul VI over heresies, and Lefebvre REFUSED to join in - this was a key time for growing the Society (many ordinations to the priesthood were occurring then). Too bad some of these men went sour. But look at the Society today. It is more powerful than many people know.
Soon there will be no more opposition - how long can they hold out? Most people will stick with the Society. And when every diocese has a Mass under the Motu, it will be because of the Society's hard work. It is happening as we speak. Many important aspects of the foundation are being laid right now.

[takeiteasy]

I am by no means endorsing Cekada, Dolan, or Sanborn, however. Their usual way of operation which is: lets  continue with our seminary project and wait for the True Pope to fall out of the sky, is absurd!

Bp. Sanborn isn't waiting for a True Pope to "fall out of the sky."  Because he believes that the Novus Ordo hierarchy retains legal authority but not juridical authority, it is his stance that if Benedict XVI were to denounce Vatican II and the errors promulgated and allowed since that he would then become a true pope.  Just getting the facts straight on the differring positions.

That is why he is not truly an SV, but still a danger because he draws so many away from SSPX.
A "true" SV, the hardcore (a small minority who do not count), they believe that the Novus Ordo hierarchy are all outside the Church. (Because they do not believe in VALIDITY of the NO.) So they believe that this hierarchy can't hold a papal election. So B16 and others were not elected popes.

I know, there are many heresies in past 40 years, many questions, many tramplings of Tradtion, but they claim that it only takes ONE heresy for a pope to depose himself, or only ONE heresy for someone to go outside the Church. They do not believe B16 is Bishop of Rome because they do not believe in validity of new holy orders replacement. (Fr Ratzinger was made Bishop Ratzinger with the new replacement sacrament, not the old - 1977). They do not believe the bishop who ordained HIM was a bishop!! They do not even believe the bishop who ordained Lefebvre a priest was a bishop!! (Crazy)

So even if B16 were to stop everything bad (new) and only do good (Traditional), the true SV's would not listen. They would not follow him, because he has no authority (not a bishop in the "old" rite, not elected by Catholics (traditional)).

This goes to show what happens when you reject hte Novus Ordo and accept only Tradition. It leads to this kind of trouble. Who needs it? Fortunately there are only a small handful out there (I think??) who are like this, they are loud but it is a small number of complainers.

NorthernTrad, I believe what Bishop Sanborn is called is Sedeprivationist. They believe B16 is a "half" pope (crazy!), distinguish between material and formal pope, but when the pope stops saying new is ok they will accept. That is POPE SIFTING! WE CANNOT DO THIS!

[Josaphat]

I am by no means endorsing Cekada, Dolan, or Sanborn, however. Their usual way of operation which is: lets  continue with our seminary project and wait for the True Pope to fall out of the sky, is absurd!

Bp. Sanborn isn't waiting for a True Pope to "fall out of the sky."  Because he believes that the Novus Ordo hierarchy retains legal authority but not juridical authority, it is his stance that if Benedict XVI were to denounce Vatican II and the errors promulgated and allowed since that he would then become a true pope.  Just getting the facts straight on the differring positions.

You are certainly wrong about Sanborn and Cekada's positions. They most certainly believe that ALL of the bishops in communion with Rome, and most especially, Benedict XVI have no authority whatsoever, because they are heretics. Also, according to Sanborn/Cekada, most Novus Ordo bishops, Ratzinger included aren't even real bishops. Therefore, as simple priests and laymen have no kind of authority at all. They would certainly argue from their position that according to Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, Ratzinger's election could NEVER be considered valid, even if he were to  "denounce Vatican II and the errors promulgated and allowed since." Here is an excerpt from one of Cekada's article's:

(This is placed here simply to correct some misinformation about the beliefs of Sanborn/Cekada, not to open a discussion about whether or not Sanborn/Cekada are right.) 

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=88&catname=11

Why the New Bishops are Not True Bishops

"Accordingly, an episcopal consecration

conferred with the sacramental form

promulgated by Paul VI in 1968 is invalid

— i.e., it cannot create a real bishop.

Priests and other bishops who derive

their orders from such bishops are themselves,

then, invalidly ordained and consecrated

as well."

[Josaphat]

Another fine example of Fr. Cekada pulling by all kind of quotes from theological manuals (while he does not even hold a PhD himself) from before the deviated Council, and making the impression of a "fine Catholic article". But it is nót.

It is again his own polemical opinion, and I can tell you, that by the same reasoning we can condemn St. Vincent Ferrer to hell, because he assisted only at Masses (in the 14th century) offered in union with the "popes" of Avignon (declared illegitimate later on), and he claimed they were the true pontiffs of the Holy Roman Church.

Fr. Cekada is way exaggerating. More and more sedevacantists seem to be making their own fallible opinions into "Magisterial morality encyclicals". And Fr. Cekada surely lacks the authority to impose his view. But still he does upon his own "sedevacantist faithful".

These men do not even wánt the Roman Chair to be undoubtedly "occupied" by a valid Pope in future. Their plays would be out.

But remember, HMiS, if these kind of articles are allowed to proliferate they can do damage by allowing their point of view to be in the open. Not all of these kind of articles can be brushed off as easily as Fr. Cekada's. Some of them are harder. Some can be convincing. There needs to be more Sedeplenist Apologetics available so that people susceptible to new ideas will not take up Sedevacantist ideas.

Hmm...last I heard, for those of you who 'recognize' Ratzinger, neither Sedeplenism or Sedavacantism was acceptable for any person to believe, if they still want to be in "full communion" with Rome. Who are you to say that the Sedeplenist theory is any more or less acceptable for Catholics to believe in than Sedavacantism?

I am by no means endorsing Cekada, Dolan, or Sanborn, however. Their usual way of operation which is: lets continue with our seminary project and wait for the True Pope to fall out of the sky, is absurd!

Josaphat, you ask "Who are you to say that the Sedeplenist theory is any more or less acceptable for Catholics to believe in than Sedavacantism? "
It is NOT FOR ME TO SAY. I do not say. THIS IS SIMPLY THE POSITION OF THE SOCIETY (and all faithful who are in league with them, all MUST HOLD THIS FACT). Otherwise you are saying the Society is wrong. The Society will NEVER tolerate SV thinking, it will NEVER mention them, endorse their chapels or books, etc.

 Heaven forbid anyone say the Society is wrong! By the way, since when did the Society become the infallible interpreter of Tradition? Frankly my dear, I don't give a darn about ANYTHING the Society has to say! I am a Catholic and will abide by the infallible declarations of the Magisterium of the Catholic Churh, not by the opinions of Fellay, or anyone else.

[Vincentius]

(This is placed here simply to correct some misinformation about the beliefs of Sanborn/Cekada, not to open a discussion about whether or not Sanborn/Cekada are right.)

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=88&catname=11

Why the New Bishops are Not True Bishops

"Accordingly, an episcopal consecration

conferred with the sacramental form

promulgated by Paul VI in 1968 is invalid

— i.e., it cannot create a real bishop.

Priests and other bishops who derive

their orders from such bishops are themselves,

then, invalidly ordained and consecrated

as well."

I wonder whether Sanborn/Cekada can with due diligence unequivocally state as with Pope Leo XIII when he pronounced judgment, declared and ruled that the Anglican orders were "absolutely null and utterly void" (as they arrogate for themselves the phrase in Fr. Cekada's paper)?   I believe the criterion to observe which will determine if priestly ordinations and episcopal comsecrations are valid or not should be based on the Bull Apostolicae Curae (Sep. 15, 1896).  

Otherwise, the new ordination rites are valid unless there is a "deficiency of intention" (intends to create a priesthood different from the sacrificing priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church) and "of form" (reduce ordination to a mere ecclesiastical institution rather than "a sacramental conferral of actual grace" by the action itself).   Such wise is what invalidated the Anglican Orders.

As we  have seen by another paper presented by Fr. Cekada, to wit, the Una Cum quandary or worriment,  in which his argument and line of reasoning stands on shaky ground ("quicksand," as described by John Lane), there are serious flaws on the speculative theory about the invalidity of the N.O. ordination rites.

[ancientpapacy]

 Heaven forbid anyone say the Society is wrong! By the way, since when did the Society become the infallible interpreter of Tradition? Frankly my dear, I don't give a darn about ANYTHING the Society has to say! I am a Catholic and will abide by the infallible declarations of the Magisterium of the Catholic Churh, not by the opinions of Fellay, or anyone else.

SSPX has no teaching authority or immunity from error-- just hegemony within the traditionalist movement, as Bishop Dolan has admitted. That's because SSPX takes a moderate traditionalist line and avoids extremes, like positions which imply that the entire apostolic succession has stopped.

[Josaphat]

Heaven forbid anyone say the Society is wrong! By the way, since when did the Society become the infallible interpreter of Tradition? Frankly my dear, I don't give a darn about ANYTHING the Society has to say! I am a Catholic and will abide by the infallible declarations of the Magisterium of the Catholic Churh, not by the opinions of Fellay, or anyone else.

SSPX has no teaching authority or immunity from error-- just hegemony within the traditionalist movement, as Bishop Dolan has admitted. That's because SSPX takes a moderate traditionalist line and avoids extremes, like positions which imply that the entire apostolic succession has stopped.

I know of no Sedavacantist who believes that "the entire apostolic succession has stopped." One who would believe such nonsense would have to confess that the Church has ceased to exist.

[Ourladyofconsolation06]

I know of no Sedavacantist who believes that "the entire apostolic succession has stopped." One who would believe such nonsense would have to confess that the Church has ceased to exist.

They get around that through their "bishop in the woods" theory. They believe that somewhere out there in the vast world, one Bishop still retains ordinary jurisdiction. Of course they believe their rogue Bishop's have apostolic succession, but they must also maintain this theory in order to still retain the belief that the Church is visible.