- first, that the clergy of the SSPX say gravely illicit Masses (since they have no jurisdiction to say Mass nor to administer the other sacraments)
- second, that the clergy of the SSPX are guilty of the sin of schism.
“Since the confection and administration of the sacraments is divinely committed to the ministry of the Church, it is self-evident that sacraments can only be conferred by someone who has been legitimately deputed by that same Church.”
One way to judge polemical writing is to test it by subjecting it to that method of refutation known as reduction to the absurd.
In this case, the objection made against SSPX: "the clergy of the SSPX say gravely illicit Masses (since they have no jurisdiction to say Mass nor to administer the other sacraments)
" applies just as much to the Thuc line, which can claim no more than the same supplied jurisdiction that SSPX does.
Further, if SSPX is guilty of schism, then Fr Cekada as well as Bishops Dolan and Sanborn were ordained in a schismatic seminary and they should not even be priests, which means that their own ministry is objectively illicit, or at least would not exist without the "schism" of SSPX.
If the sacraments "can only be conferred by someone who has been legitimately deputed by that same Church,
” then either supplied jurisdiction suffices, or it would seem that all "unapproved" Tridentine Masses are illicit.
Thus Fr Cekada's article would refute not only the SSPX's position, but his own-- hardly the standard for successful polemical writing.