CMRI

[INPEFESS]

Sooner or later, though, some young SSPV priest is bound to start researching these topics. He may even be attempting refute what I, Bp. Sanborn, Mario Derksen, or many others have written.

If he is objective and diligent, he will eventually discover what Bp. Sanborn and I discovered in the 1980s: Bp. Kelly's objections to the validity of the Thuc consecrations or to association with CMRI are based on principles that do not exist in sacramental theology (e.g., "hawkeye" witnesses for sacramental validity) or canon law (e.g. "infectious" penalties that jump from person to person).

How about what you wrote on the subject?

Sure — all of it.

But like me — and remember I was initially on the anti-Abp. Thuc side — he shouldn't be contented with the handful of quotes from vernacular manuals that Fr. Kelly came up with in the 1980s, and that you recycled above for the umpteenth time.

He should read his way through the canon law, sacramental/moral theology sections of a few big seminary and Catholic university libraries (I used St. John's, Marquette, Fordham and St. Francis).

It was through this process that I eventually concluded that Fr. Kelly's objections didn't hold water.

Right. You concluded. And then when others don't agree with this flip-flopping, you try to make them look like fools. I don't agree with this at all. You held the same opinion at one time, and were quick to engage those who disagreed. Then, when the episcopal horizon began to look particularly bleak, you decided maybe you should make an exception to the principles to which you had previously held fast. Then your opinion became, "There's no reason to question it in the first place! He is a bishop because he says he is. We can just take his word for it. That'll have to do." Not everyone is obliged to follow you every time you change your mind on an issue.

Example: his use of a phrase in an English resumé of Jone to support the idea that an episcopal consecration somehow required "hawkeye" witnesses to attest that matter and form were applied correctly. Recourse to the three-volume Latin original, however, revealed that Jone was in fact speaking about the case of a pastor's obligation to quiz a midwife who had performed an emergency baptism.

Yes, you bring this up because you don't understand the argument. In Bp. Kelly's book, he points out that certain documentation is necessary. He then goes on to cite this text as the only case in which the Church has allowed witnesses to attest to a certain fact in the event that such-and-such a fact needs to be substantiated. But even going this far in trying to establish the validity is stretching what the Church, Herself, has allowed. The argument doesn't rest on the witnesses. The lack of witness testimony simply eliminates all possible angles that could in any way be said to establish validity in the mind of the Church. Because you don't seem to understand the argument, this point that you bring up hurts your argument more than supports it.

Be that as it may, I am convinced that sooner or later, one of the young priests in SSPV will have the drive, the ability and the intellectual curiosity to pursue the matter, and will finally come up with the same conclusions that we all did: Bp. Kelly's arguments against Abp. Thuc's consecrations and CMRI utterly lack credibility in terms of the standard principles of canon law and sacramental-moral theology.

Not everyone has to change their mind when you do, Father.

[FatherCekada]

Example: his use of a phrase in an English resumé of Jone to support the idea that an episcopal consecration somehow required "hawkeye" witnesses to attest that matter and form were applied correctly. Recourse to the three-volume Latin original, however, revealed that Jone was in fact speaking about the case of a pastor's obligation to quiz a midwife who had performed an emergency baptism.

Yes, you bring this up because you don't understand the argument. In Bp. Kelly's book, he points out that certain documentation is necessary. He then goes on to cite this text as the only case in which the Church has allowed witnesses to attest to a certain fact in the event that such-and-such a fact needs to be substantiated. But even going this far in trying to establish the validity is stretching what the Church, Herself, has allowed. The argument doesn't rest on the witnesses. The lack of witness testimony simply eliminates all possible angles that could in any way be said to establish validity in the mind of the Church. Because you don't seem to understand the argument, this point that you bring up hurts your argument more than supports it.

I understand his argument because I was in the room when he tried to pawn it off on us in the first place.

And while I may have swallowed it at the beginning, I sure didn't when I eventually looked up his sources.

Right. You concluded. And then when others don't agree with this flip-flopping, you try to make them look like fools. I don't agree with this at all. You held the same opinion at one time, and were quick to engage those who disagreed.

Sure. And once I defended the Novus Ordo, thought Paul VI was a true pope, had no difficulties with the post-Vatican II rites for Holy Orders, and held a lot of other positions that I've changed. So have most other trads.

And like everyone else, I changed my positions based on new evidence when it came to light — either facts or theological principles.

Your approach — swallow poorly-sourced arguments that Fr. Kelly cobbled together thirty years ago — is a recipe for ossified theological stupidity.

In the long run, young priests in his organization who do not have the same prejudices will begin to re-examine the question and, I am convinced, come to the same conclusion that the rest of us did: The Kelly arguments against Abp. Thuc and CMRI are indefensible.

[INPEFESS]

I understand his argument because I was in the room when he tried to pawn it off on us in the first place.

And while I may have swallowed it at the beginning, I sure didn't when I eventually looked up his sources.

That doesn't prove that you understand it.

I have debated this matter with you in the past and your own objections indicate a misunderstanding of the arguments.

Example #1: You say that Bp. Kelly cobbled together poorly-sourced arguments--that is, that he took things out of context--yet your own decision to reject his position wasn't based on his actual argument. It was based on your reaction to one of his statements, which was ironically taken out of context by you so as to invent a conspiracy that justifies your change of heart. You repeatedly cite this statement as though this was all he said, ignoring what he was actually talking about.

Example #2: You attack the witness argument as though that is the argument. But the fact that you attack it as though it were the main point indicates that you don't know what the argument is. The significance of the witnesses is this: The only means by which the Church has substantiated sacramental validity in the absence of the proper documentation is the testimony of witnesses (in the case of the midwives mentioned earlier). It is the only alternative means used by the mind of the Church to establish some sort of basis for attesting to the validity of a sacrament. But even if one were to try to use this as a principle for discerning the mind of the Church as it concerns the validity of Orders, we are still faced with a problem: the only "witnesses" didn't meet the only criteria the Church has ever allowed. That rules their testimony out as being in any way useful in trying to establish moral certitude concerning the presumption of sacramental validity.

Example #3: When speaking about the applicability of Ad Apostolorum Principis last time I debated you, you invented an argument for the SSPV (and for Bp. Kelly) to try to make them (and him) look ridiculous. You said that since, in your mind, the SSPV's argument is that the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication only applies to a bishop who has actually gone through with a valid consecration, but the SSPV casts doubt on the validity of those consecrations, therefore, there can be no charge for excommunication, because the only way the penalty applies is if it the consecration is performed. You then made some witty little insult of Bp. Kelly by stating that he needs to learn about "the chicken and the egg." But the fact that you want to argue such nonsense indicates that you don't know what the SSPV's argument is, or that you don't care to actually address it. They have been saying from the beginning that Thuc would have incurred excommunication from the multiple consecrations before the last three he performed, starting with the Palmar de Troya consecrations and continuing through his consecrations of schismatics, heretics, homosexuals, and even those dabbling in the occult. These were the consecrations which attacked the unity of the Church, performed "rashly" and against all "right and law," and for which the Church has reserved the most serious type of excommunication. But you think it's alright for priests to go to such a person to receive Holy Orders? There isn't a single instance in Church history where that has been permitted. With all due respect, if you want the SSPV to take you seriously, you have to address their actual arguments. But so far, you are only attacking arguments the SSPV doesn't even make.

[OldMan]

Canon law c.2261 indicates that "the faithful for a just cause can ask for sacraments and sacramentals from one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them...

I don't know of any valid bishop who was willing to consecrate a bishop for any traditional group, so I'd say Abp. Thuc was the bishop in any senario. Episcopal consecration is a sacrament, right? Holy Orders?

Abp. Thuc  was not an excommunicated vitandus (except in Fr. Kelly's mind). Furthermore, Abp. Thuc repudiated his mistake when he became aware of it. Who would lift such an excommunication? JP II? Don't make me laugh! The only excommunication issued by the N. O. was for consecration of bishops without a papal mandate. Oh, and we know Abp. Thuc wasn't senile as he couldn't incur excommunication if he was.

Sorry, but the SSPV position is just baloney!

[tmw89]

Sorry, but the SSPV position is just baloney!

I think I agree with your line of reasoning here, OldMan.

...although, here's what gets me - and if I get any of these facts wrong, please correct me:  the 9 who left SSPX form SSPV.  OK.  Some members of SSPV - Fr. Cekada, Fr. Dolan, Fr. Sanborn, etc. - come around to CMRI's Thuc reasoning, whereas Fr. Jenkins and Fr. Kelly don't... so the former three priests leave the SSPV.  OK. 

Fr. Dolan and Fr. Sanborn are consecrated bishops in the Thuc-line.

Fr. Kelly is consecrated bishop by +Alfredo Mendez Gonzalez.  Fr. Cekada, after initially questioning the validity, accepts it.

QUESTION:  The nine who left the SSPX must have had some sense of camaraderie - if +Kelly doubts the Thuc-line to which +Dolan and +Sanborn are a part, why doesn't he offer to... "conditionally" consecrate them, himself?  Can such a thing be done, like "conditional" Baptism and Confirmation?

[Tapatio]

Canon law c.2261 indicates that "the faithful for a just cause can ask for sacraments and sacramentals from one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them...

I don't know of any valid bishop who was willing to consecrate a bishop for any traditional group, so I'd say Abp. Thuc was the bishop in any senario. Episcopal consecration is a sacrament, right? Holy Orders?

Abp. Thuc  was not an excommunicated vitandus (except in Fr. Kelly's mind). Furthermore, Abp. Thuc repudiated his mistake when he became aware of it. Who would lift such an excommunication? JP II? Don't make me laugh! The only excommunication issued by the N. O. was for consecration of bishops without a papal mandate. Oh, and we know Abp. Thuc wasn't senile as he couldn't incur excommunication if he was.

Sorry, but the SSPV position is just baloney!

You know, with all due respect to Fr. Cekada and INPEFESS, the only sedevacantist who I can say has shaken the rug a bit under my feet is Hutton Gibson.
He is a class apart from the current sedes. He did not base his thinking off a post 1960+ priest.
No, this guy actually is well read and a learned man. I think he can best any sede at their own game.
He does not reference Bishop Thuc or bishop Kelly or the Dimon Bros. No, he goes back to Papal Bulls, encyclicals, discourses from saints, heretics, martyrs, Popes, Canon.

I guess the sedes would have more "followers" per se if they base their "facts" on facts and not on personal opinions of some rampant bishop who was not a sede 10 years ago then is now a sede but not a real sede. Go figure?
Check out any interview of that man, and he will blow away any of the current sedevacante arguments.


Again, I am a blatantly opposed to sedevacantism.

Oremus Pro Pontifice nostro Benedicto XVI

[Old Salt]

As an aside, I wonder if any sede group has gotten permission to offer Mass anywhere in the Vatican?

[OldMan]

Sorry, but the SSPV position is just baloney!

I think I agree with your line of reasoning here, OldMan.

...although, here's what gets me - and if I get any of these facts wrong, please correct me:  the 9 who left SSPX form SSPV.  OK.  Some members of SSPV - Fr. Cekada, Fr. Dolan, Fr. Sanborn, etc. - come around to CMRI's Thuc reasoning, whereas Fr. Jenkins and Fr. Kelly don't... so the former three priests leave the SSPV.  OK. 

Fr. Dolan and Fr. Sanborn are consecrated bishops in the Thuc-line.

Fr. Kelly is consecrated bishop by +Alfredo Mendez Gonzalez.  Fr. Cekada, after initially questioning the validity, accepts it.

QUESTION:  The nine who left the SSPX must have had some sense of camaraderie - if +Kelly doubts the Thuc-line to which +Dolan and +Sanborn are a part, why doesn't he offer to... "conditionally" consecrate them, himself?  Can such a thing be done, like "conditional" Baptism and Confirmation?

The answer is quite simple, it is a mortal sin to repeat a valid sacrament. Since Bps. Sanborn and Dolan consider their orders valid they could not (and would not just to mollify Bp. Kelly & Company) do so. With so many wars to fight with the modernists we still have to deal with this crap! And that's all it is SSPV crap! Tell a lie long enough and people will begin to believe it.

If one looks at the episcopal consecrations of the Old Catholics one could find that many, many of their bishops have had multiple episcopal consecrations. This is something no one in their right mind would wish to be involved with.

Pray for the restoration of the papacy! Trads of any flavor can see that this is the real problem!

[FatherCekada]

Example #1: You say that Bp. Kelly cobbled together poorly-sourced arguments--that is, that he took things out of context--yet your own decision to reject his position wasn't based on his actual argument. It was based on your reaction to one of his statements, which was ironically taken out of context by you so as to invent a conspiracy that justifies your change of heart.

Father Kelly statement to me in September 1988 — “We can’t say the consecrations [of the Thuc bishops] are valid — or some of our priests will want to get involved with them" — did not cause me to have a "change of heart."  His statement merely (merely!) demonstrated to me that he was intellectually dishonest.

It was research in canon law and sacramental theology manuals that changed my mind.

Example #2: You attack the witness argument as though that is the argument. But the fact that you attack it as though it were the main point indicates that you don't know what the argument is. The significance of the witnesses is this: The only means by which the Church has substantiated sacramental validity in the absence of the proper documentation is the testimony of witnesses (in the case of the midwives mentioned earlier). It is the only alternative means used by the mind of the Church to establish some sort of basis for attesting to the validity of a sacrament. But even if one were to try to use this as a principle for discerning the mind of the Church as it concerns the validity of Orders, we are still faced with a problem: the only "witnesses" didn't meet the only criteria the Church has ever allowed. That rules their testimony out as being in any way useful in trying to establish moral certitude concerning the presumption of sacramental validity.

The Kelly "hawkeye-witnesses-required-for-presumption-of-sacramental-validity" rule again!

But we're thirty years on, and STILL no one can find the "rule" in a canon law or sacramental theology manual.

Example #3: When speaking about the applicability of Ad Apostolorum Principis last time I debated you, you invented an argument for the SSPV (and for Bp. Kelly) to try to make them (and him) look ridiculous. You said that since, in your mind, the SSPV's argument is that the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication only applies to a bishop who has actually gone through with a valid consecration, but the SSPV casts doubt on the validity of those consecrations, therefore, there can be no charge for excommunication, because the only way the penalty applies is if it the consecration is performed. You then made some witty little insult of Bp. Kelly by stating that he needs to learn about "the chicken and the egg." But the fact that you want to argue such nonsense indicates that you don't know what the SSPV's argument is, or that you don't care to actually address it. They have been saying from the beginning that Thuc would have incurred excommunication from the multiple consecrations before the last three he performed, starting with the Palmar de Troya consecrations and continuing through his consecrations of schismatics, heretics, homosexuals, and even those dabbling in the occult. These were the consecrations which attacked the unity of the Church, performed "rashly" and against all "right and law," and for which the Church has reserved the most serious type of excommunication. But you think it's alright for priests to go to such a person to receive Holy Orders? There isn't a single instance in Church history where that has been permitted. With all due respect, if you want the SSPV to take you seriously, you have to address their actual arguments. But so far, you are only attacking arguments the SSPV doesn't even make.

The excommunication, as I demonstrated by citing the canonist Regatillo, is incurred is incurred for the specific offense of consecrating a bishop to be the Ordinary of a diocese, "sine provisione canonica" (without canonical appointment to that office).

No canonist says it's for "suddenly consecrating bad guys" (as SSPV maintains). And no canonist says that incurring an excommunication elides the presumption of validity for sacraments an excommunicate confers after he incurs the penalty (again as SSPV maintains).

But as I say, I am confident that one day some SSPV priests will do some research and discover these things for themselves.

[OldMan]

Canon law c.2261 indicates that "the faithful for a just cause can ask for sacraments and sacramentals from one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them...

I don't know of any valid bishop who was willing to consecrate a bishop for any traditional group, so I'd say Abp. Thuc was the bishop in any senario. Episcopal consecration is a sacrament, right? Holy Orders?

Abp. Thuc  was not an excommunicated vitandus (except in Fr. Kelly's mind). Furthermore, Abp. Thuc repudiated his mistake when he became aware of it. Who would lift such an excommunication? JP II? Don't make me laugh! The only excommunication issued by the N. O. was for consecration of bishops without a papal mandate. Oh, and we know Abp. Thuc wasn't senile as he couldn't incur excommunication if he was.

Sorry, but the SSPV position is just baloney!

You know, with all due respect to Fr. Cekada and INPEFESS, the only sedevacantist who I can say has shaken the rug a bit under my feet is Hutton Gibson.
He is a class apart from the current sedes. He did not base his thinking off a post 1960+ priest.
No, this guy actually is well read and a learned man. I think he can best any sede at their own game.
He does not reference Bishop Thuc or bishop Kelly or the Dimon Bros. No, he goes back to Papal Bulls, encyclicals, discourses from saints, heretics, martyrs, Popes, Canon.

I guess the sedes would have more "followers" per se if they base their "facts" on facts and not on personal opinions of some rampant bishop who was not a sede 10 years ago then is now a sede but not a real sede. Go figure?
Check out any interview of that man, and he will blow away any of the current sedevacante arguments.


Again, I am a blatantly opposed to sedevacantism.

Oremus Pro Pontifice nostro Benedicto XVI

Obviously, you haven't studied the issue...