It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:35 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ] 
 Pope Sifting - Sermon by Rev. Cekada 
Author Message

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:24 pm
Posts: 75
New post Pope Sifting - Sermon by Rev. Cekada
I wonder what people's thoughts are about Rev. Anthony Cekada's latest talk
about a True Pope and papal and Catholic Church authority regarding Vatican II
and the Novus Ordo (mass) . I found his comments compelling in their simplicity.

Here is link to mp3 file:

http://www.sgg.org/sermons/060709.m3u

He hits the SSPX position on "pope sifting" directly and what do others
here think of his points. What counter-arguements might be made against
his points?

Rev. Cekada states the only way to disobey a Pope is
if they are not a True Pope. Which of course means that
the Sedevacantist position maybe the only way to not follow
the teachings of [John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI]
and still be following the Catholic Faith.


Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:47 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Pope Sifting - Sermon by Rev. Cekada
oremus wrote:
I found his comments compelling in their simplicity.


I agree.

oremus wrote:
What counter-arguements might be made against his points?


He is right on the theology, so none which would prove him wrong on the doctrinal points he makes.

However, he appears incorrectly to identify the cause of the errors implied by the SSPX position - or at least, he is not tracing them back to their true cause. Which is that the errors of the SSPX position arise accidentally from their defence of the true religion against the depredations of the Modernists. The cause is good - the defence of the Faith. The errors are lamentable - and worthy of censure, and in our charity we must try to eliminate them from the minds of those infected with them. But to condemn the SSPX because of these errors is to misunderstand the entire nature of the problem. The problem is V2 and the mystery it represents for all true Catholics.

The great French canonist Marie Dominique Bioux held that an heretical pope would remain pope but must be resisted. This is a Catholic position. That is, despite the fact that we think it is incorrect, we must allow that a good Catholic may hold it if it appears true to him. Just as we demand that our own position is one we are entitled to hold, we must grant the same to those with whom we differ. Is this liberalism, you may wonder? No, it is not. It is the humility which remembers that our own judgements are fallible, and that any judgement concerning an ecclesiastical office by a layman or an inferior cleric is extraordinary by its very nature, and therefore must not become the basis for condemnations of others who do not share such a judgement.

The "sigh" that Fr. Cekada describes as "thirty six years of error" actually signifies something quite different from that. He is quite wrong, in my opinion. The sigh is the sure sign that the faithful in the SSPX chapels recognise that the men in Rome cannot be trusted, and that they intend to maintain the Faith despite the Modernists. For this we should be grateful to God, Who gives good things to all, and Who by mysterious operations maintains the safety even of those who still think that the wolf is in fact the chief shepherd on earth.

In my opinion Fr. Cekada's arguments are excellent means for addressing individuals so as to convince them that they ought to change their position; but the same arguments, if not qualified correctly, carry the danger of encouraging a party spirit. Such is the mystery of this horrible crisis.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:25 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
From: Rev.Anthony Cekada [mailto:frcekada@sgg.org]
Sent: Monday, 17 July 2006 5:34 AM
To: Cekada Rev.Anthony
Subject: Mystery Explained!


John Lane's Bellarmine Forum comment on
Fr. Cekada's "Errors of SSPX" Sermon:

"He is right on the theology…

"But to condemn the SSPX because of these errors is to misunderstand the entire nature of the problem. The problem is V2 and the mystery it represents for all true Catholics…

"In my opinion Fr. Cekada's arguments are excellent means for addressing individuals so as to convince them that they ought to change their position; but the same arguments, if not qualified correctly, carry the danger of encouraging a party spirit. Such is the mystery of this horrible crisis."

-----------------------

Translation:

(1) Ideas have no consequences.

(2) Geography determines theology.


Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:29 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
From: John Lane
Sent: Monday, 17 July 2006 6:53 AM
To: 'Rev.Anthony Cekada'
Subject: RE: Mystery Explained!


Dear Father,

I have a big smile on my face. I enjoy your wit, even when its purpose is Lane vivisection.

You omitted the criticism I did make of your ideas. Your theology is sound. It is your analysis of fact that errs.

Ideas have consequences - just not the one you have in view.

Geography assists with a clear view. Nothing sharpens the intellect like the prospect of rare sacraments and "schism" from men one knows to be fellow Catholics. Likewise, nothing dulls the evil of schism like geographic distance from the men one is cutting off from the Church. You need to have a beer with an SSPX priest or two more often.

Just remember that God is permitting this situation to be confusing, and not providing an authentic judgement to clarify it for all. If God wants it fixed, He will fix it. You cannot. But you can make it worse.

1. Geography makes schism less painful.

2. You're not the Church.

Yours in Christ our Glorious King,
JFL.


Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:30 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post 
Quoting Father Cekada.....
John Lane wrote:

Translation:

(1) Ideas have no consequences.

(2) Geography determines theology.
:lol:


Father certainly does have a way about him.

I must admit though John, I am becoming a bit concerned at the recent agitation coming from Bishops Dolan, Sanborn, and Father Cekada on the "Una cum" issue and the errors of the SSPX. It's strange to find myself in agreement with most of what they say...but just wishing they wouldn't say it.

Bill


Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:33 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Bill wrote:
Father certainly does have a way about him.

I must admit though John, I am becoming a bit concerned at the recent agitation coming from Bishops Dolan, Sanborn, and Father Cekada on the "Una cum" issue and the errors of the SSPX. It's strange to find myself in agreement with most of what they say...but just wishing they wouldn't say it.

Bill


Dear Bill,

I think it's because the errors they are attacking really are implied by the sedeplenist position. And yet, ironically, because we all know that the sedeplenists don't actually hold those errors. Or at least, if they do more or less consciously advert to them, they accept them as true on condition that they are true. The fixed rule for these men is to maintain the Faith. Everything else can be jettisoned if necessary. Fr. Cekada's presentation suggests that it is sedeplenism which is their fixed point, and the Faith which can be jettisoned.

That view is simply not able to be squared with the facts. It is a question of causes. The sedeplenist traditional Catholic is a minimalist. He is holding fact to the traditions he has received. He is leaving aside the weighty and extraordinary question of how the Catholic Church can appear to have failed as she appears, from where he stands, to have failed. It is a mystery to him. This is the position and attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre. "Don't tempt God. Don't try and fix what is not in your power. Don't attempt to solve mysteries which it is not your clear responsibility to resolve." Those are not quotes - just my paraphrase of the Archbishop's mind.

In other words, the sedeplenist position is the position taken by all traditional Catholics at the beginning of the crisis and right through until the sedevacantist position was posited as a better intellectual reaction to the facts of our time. It is the position Fr. Cekada himself held for many years. And Bishops Dolan and Sanborn. If it is "sinful" to hold it then they are all guilty too. If it is so completely obvious that it cannot be squared with sound doctrine, so that we must blame all men who hold it today, then where is the sack-cloth and ashes for their own past failings?

This is why I say that these arguments are good for addressing people in all kindness to get them to think more clearly about the crisis and consider an alternative and superior explanation; but they are dangerous arguments if they are presented in such a way as to imply the guilt of sedeplenists for holding the errors described. And this for two reasons.

Firstly, it is unjust, in at least most cases. They do not hold those errors. They reject them explicitly. Just to give one example - the Novus Ordo Missae, mentioned by Fr. Cekada in his sermon. It is true that the Church cannot give us bad rites. But one answer to this conundrum is to assert that there was a flaw in the promulgation and that therefore the authority of the Catholic Churhc was not involved. This argument is wrong, in my opinion. It has been answered in various ways, including by Fr. Cekada himself. But it avoids the error that the Church has given us an evil rite of Mass.

Secondly, it is counter-productive. I have had sufficient experience with sedeplenist priests to be fully convinced that most of the time they do not listen to any argument put forward by a sedevacantist. And not because they are of ill-will, but merely because most of us are incompetent and put forward blatantly bad arguments, and we tend to spice them up with malice of one flavour or another. It's a lovely mix. They pity us and would like to assist us out of what they genuinely see as our bitter and erroneous mentality. Their main charge against us is that we do not seem to be aware of the fundamental Christian precept that we ought not to judge unless absolutely necessary, and even then we ought to remember our frailty and conduct ourselves with great diffidence. The kind of presentation we are discussing only serves to prove them right about how we approach this question of forming judgements, and worse - it gives them a ready explanation for why we "judge the pope."

Frankly, the aggressive attitude of many sedevacantists is in my opinion one of the chief obstacles to the proper consideration of the mysteries of our time. Men do not listen when they are busy defending themselves.

The other element to keep in mind, and why I say that this crisis is a mystery - and not just to them, but to all - is because the sedevacantist position does not solve all mysteries. A mature consideration of the nature of the Church as explained in the pre-V2 manuals will suffice to convince anyone that "Vatican II" was really the impossible crisis, mysterious in its genesis, in its progress, and in its culmination. In my opinion it will certainly create new distinctions in the treatise de ecclesia when theology is restored and the schools are again bustling with erudite minds attempting to unravel this greatest of historical catastrophes. In the same way that the Arian Crisis and the Great Western Schism presented elements of failure which produced all manner of confusion to even the most learned and holy men of their day, and yet were suffiently explained after the fact, so does this crisis present the most incredible features which will all be resolved satisfactorily in the future. So our Faith assures us.

And so to my favourite quote. St. Augustine ("On Baptism Against the Donatists" Bk 1), first quotes St. Paul, "Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing" to prove that it is necessary for supernatural life to remain in the unity of Holy Church ("in the bond of charity"). Then he speaks as follows: "And yet, if within the Church different men still held different opinions on the point, without meanwhile violating peace, then till some one clear and simple decree should have been passed by an universal Council, it would have been right for the charity which seeks for unity to throw a veil over the error of human infirmity, as it is written 'For charity covers a multitude of sins.' For, seeing that its absence causes the presence of all other things to be of no avail, we may well suppose that in its presence there is found pardon for the absence of some missing things." (Emphasis added.)

I suggest to you Bill that your Catholic sense is merely asking that the charity which seeks for unity should throw a veil over the error of human infirmity, until the Church renders her infallible and much-desired judgement. That is why you feel as you do. And I think the average sedevacantist in the pew feels the same way. He may not possess the skill to express it properly, but his heart and his mind are sound.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:28 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
My question regarding the attacks on the SSPX, is: are our friends applying the following rule of St. Ignatius Loyola, in the Spiritual Exercises?

“…every good Christian is to be more ready to save his neighbor’s proposition than to condemn it. If he cannot save it, let him inquire how he means it; and if he means it badly, let him correct him with charity. If that is not enough, let him seek all the suitable means to bring him to mean it well, and save himself.”


Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:26 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
I am afraid that there are quite a few sede vacantist Catholics who do not feel as you do about the SSPX or those who attend their Masses. As to aggression I think that this is actually the other way round. I have yet to meet an SSPX devotee who would receive Communion from a sede vacantist priest, no matter how meek, humble and charitable they are.

In fact I do not know any sede vacantist priests who would fully agree with your take on the SSPX. I know that Father Oswald Baker, one of the first to hold the sede vacantist view, did not.

:? It is one of the most difficult areas of our Faith this 'ought not to judge' scenario, especially when it is combined with a false notion of what true Charity towards others comprises. It is true that the magesterium of the Church has not spoken on the sede vacantist question but those who hold it to be true cannot but consider that those who acknowledge the modernists popes are acknowleging a false religion. It is not the same, as for instance could have occurred prior to Vatican I, if some Catholics did not agree with the question of the infallibility of the pope. Had I been around at the time I could have quite happily acknowledged my fellow Catholic's right to hold a different view on this (as some believed Cardinal Newman did) right up until the pronouncment. Only after the pronouncement, if they did not submit, would I have felt that I could no longer hold my peace. This situation is indeed different.

I am not saying that one does not deal charitably with our SSPX bretheren of course we do. Just as I deal, I hope, charitably with my well meaning Protestant friends. Nevertheless they are wrong. Every sede vacantist priest that I have known - knowing that I espouse this position - would tell me that I must not attend an SSPX Mass. The answer would be different if he knew that I did not espouse the SV position or was unsure. There is no compromise with truth.

Pia


Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:29 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
As to aggression I think that this is actually the other way round.


Yes, I think there is fault on both sides. I don't consider it relevant, however. Our task is to behave well.

Pia wrote:
In fact I do not know any sede vacantist priests who would fully agree with your take on the SSPX.


I do. Most of them, in fact.

Pia wrote:
I know that Father Oswald Baker, one of the first to hold the sede vacantist view, did not.


He certainly agreed that we may assist at their Masses. Did he change his mind on this at some point?

Pia wrote:
This situation is indeed different.


You need to have a good hard think about that and see if you can identify exactly what that difference is. If you think it consists in "acknowledging a false religion" then I ask you to explain what you mean by that. A false church? A false set of beliefs and practices?

Pia wrote:
I am not saying that one does not deal charitably with our SSPX bretheren of course we do. Just as I deal, I hope, charitably with my well meaning Protestant friends.


In other words, you do not cosider the sedeplenists to be Catholics. That makes all the difference. If I did not think that they were Catholics, I would not (obviously!) consider it lawful to assist at their Masses.

Pia wrote:
There is no compromise with truth.


Of course not. We all agree with that. The question is, what is the truth in this matter?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:38 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 80
New post 
John Lane wrote:
“…every good Christian is to be more ready to save his neighbor’s proposition than to condemn it. If he cannot save it, let him inquire how he means it; and if he means it badly, let him correct him with charity. If that is not enough, let him seek all the suitable means to bring him to mean it well, and save himself.”


I have read this quote before, and have accepted it on a profound level.

One of the "unintended consequences" of the traditionalist stance, is the over-reliance upon one's self. In our efforts to remain unsullied by the conciliar mess, we've developed the protestant aura of..."everyone is wrong except me". I've certainly been guilty of this myself.

As traditionalists, I think we need to remember that we don't want the situation of not having a living authority to continue. It seems that quite a few have become relaxed....kind of content with the whole mess. In doing so, many have become comfortable with throwing the word "heresey" around as if it were an adjective to describe everyone who disagrees with them.

Well, I use to be a protestant, and I became weary with being my own authority. I'm craving a restoration. I desire it more than I can say, but in the mean time, if I error, I am going to error on the side of charity. Given our current situation, I am very unsure of myself. Without the magestarium, I simply prefer casting as few people out of the church as I possibly can. Call me a "softy" I guess. :)

As you have stated before John...I excpect the church to save me...I don't excpect to save her. And I certainly don't think pronouncing dogmatically on undecided points will benefit the church, in fact, it can only harm her.

In Christ,
Bill


Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:02 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:24 pm
Posts: 75
New post 
I tend to agree with John's idea about both sides being charitable and
both the SSPX and SedeVacantists have problems dealing with one another.
This is sad. Some what understandable but also something the counterfeit
church of rome can take advantage of.

Pia - I know many SSPX'ers who receive Communion from sede vacantist priests.

However, I have also had SSPX priest warn NOT to go to a sede vacantist church
and so far have not heard the Sede vacantist priest say not to go to the SSPX.
But I would guess that to does happen.

Another point is that perhaps the SSPX and Sede vacantist should unite as
St. Robert Bellarmine stated in De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Chapter 29

Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist
the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to
destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders
and preventing his will from being executed.


Notice he states "preventing his will from being executed" this maybe a point
that the SSPX and Sede vacantist's should unite on.


Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:58 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
John Lane wrote:
I do. Most of them


Ah but how do you know? We shall have to disagree on this one

John Lane wrote:
He certainly agreed that we may assist at their Masses. Did he change his mind on this at some point?


Nope, he never changed his mind. He held the same view until the day he died. As far as I am aware if you were an avowed sede vacantist he would tell you that unless you were in danger of death you could not assist or receive communion at an SSPX mass. As already stated his reply would be different if the enquirer was not a committed sede vacantist or not fully aware of the situation.

John Lane wrote:
If you think it consists of "acknowledging a false religion" then I ask you to explain what you mean by that. A false Church? A false set of beliefs and practices?


I have had many years to have a long hard think John. Whilst I could spend some time telling you what I believe the 'difference' is I am not sure that it would be to any avail as I think others, including Father Baker, have probably done a better job than I could and still not convinced you. In any event if you are asking whether I think the religion emanating from what purports to be the Catholic Church in Rome is a false religion I would say yes it is. It certainly is not the Catholic religion that I know. A false set of beliefs and practices? - I suppose in some ways that is the same as a false religion. A false Church - depends on which definition of Church we are using - buildings, people, faith????

John Lane wrote:
In other words you do not consider the sedplenists to be Catholics. That makes all the difference. If I did not think they were Catholics, I would not (obviously!) consider it lawful to assist at their Masses


If I gave the impression that I did not think they were Catholics then I am sorry I should have been more specific. They believe mistakenly that the Church to which they are showing allegiance has the true Catholic Faith - they are wrong. In the Reformation there were validly ordained priests who offered the Catholic Mass but were I alive then I would not have dreamt of assisting at one of their Masses.

If acknowledging 'Benedict XVI' as Pope is wrong then we must condemn it as wrong and not give scandal by assisting at the Mass of a priest who acknowledges him as Pope. If it is not wrong then ......we all know the answer.

John Lane wrote:
The question is, what is the truth in this matter?


Precisely John but you cannot have it both ways, you cannot always 'sit on the fence'. We are required to make judgements and we are required to choose. And we must choose the truth.

Pia


Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:49 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Soory haven't yet got the hang of the quotes - do I hit quote before I type so and so wrote? Once again sorry to confuse and hope it makes sense.

Pia


Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:51 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Pia,

Here is the best I can figure it out. There may be an easier way.

To put something in the shaded "quote" box it should be preceeded by [quote] then type or paste the quoted material, then put [/quote]. Now you can use the quote box at top to start it and then hit the close tags command, but I usually don't get the desired results, so I mainly do this manually.

Now if you want to enter the person's name that you are quoting you must do [quote="Pia"] to open and again type [/quote] to close. If you then hit "preview" you can check your result before you submit. Again, there may be an easier way to do all this, but I don't know it.


Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:00 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Oremus wrote:

Pia - I know many SSPX'ers who receive Communion from sede vacantist priests


If you mean by SSPX'ers people who attend Masses said by priests who are members of SPPX also receive Communion from sede vacantist priests then I would say you are right - certainly Father Baker himself had a few who attended his Mass and also the SSPX Mass centres. However I think every person that I have met who fully understands the sede vacantist position but who yet avows/believes in the SSPX position would NOT receive Communion from a true sede vacantist priest. And I would add that every person, priest or layman, who fully understands and avows the sede vacantist position would, unless in danger of death, NOT receive Communion from an Una Cum SSPX priest or assist at his Mass - this would include Bishops Sanborn and Dolan and Father Cekada.

(I'll try the quote thing again)

Quote:
"Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist etc etc......"


I am sorry to say but this really is an old chestnut. As has been said before it is strange how the SSPX'ers never read past this 'section' of St Robert Bellarmine's to his stronger condemnation of heretical popes and heirarchy.

I am afraid there is no more chance that a true sede vacantist could unite with this view than they would accept women priests. If you don't think the man is the pope there is no question of resisting him is there?

Pia


Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:11 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
I think I'll have to give up on the quotes! :lol:


Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:12 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Pia,

I went in and fixed your last post the way, I think, you meant it. If I have done harm to your thought, let me know.

Again, to quote something, maybe the easiest way is to manually type: [quote] in front of the material, and manually type [/quote] after the material. It you want to say so and so said then begin with [quote="soandso"] and then type [/quote] at the end. You did a good job on the italics thing. :)


Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:26 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
Ah but how do you know? We shall have to disagree on this one


We could disagree if we both presented our data and neither convinced the other, so here's mine.

Here are Fr. Baker's published words on this point:
Quote:
…It is understandable that there is now some perplexity about attending St Pius X Society Masses. It is of course different from attending the new ‘Mass’. A priest in the Conciliar Church shares the erroneous beliefs and obeys the instructions of John Paul II, leader of a false religion, false because its errors include the tenets of Vatican II. In practice, Lefebvre rejects both the commands and heresies of John Paul II, his acknowledgement of whom can be regarded as a theoretical error of mistaken identity. Lefebvre is not spurning the pope or the Pope’s subjects, he is not heretical, for he accepts all Catholic doctrines, and his Mass and sacraments are undeniably Catholic, despite his lamentable acceptance of the debated ‘John XXIII reforms’. Given the extreme abnormality of a situation in which John Paul II is all but universally accepted as Pope, the faithful who would otherwise be deprived of the life-giving sacraments are in my view entitled to ignore Lefebvre’s professed allegiance and attend the Masses of his priests. Lefebvre is not an agent of John Paul II as a Conciliar ‘priest’ is, and though his misunderstanding concerning the John Paul and the Conciliar Church may annoy, depress or even horrify, it does not debar stranded, stricken Catholics from the ministrations of his priests. I do of course refuse the use of my altar to any priest who puts John Paul’s name in the canon, but this is surely not inconsistent. My altar and oratory are private property, the priest is not in dire need and suffers no deprivation, there are other altars available (there is a John Paul II church next door), and I must do what I can to impress on a priest the error of his ways. Similarly a layman too has, opportunity offering, an obligation to intimate his protest against the insertion of John-Paul’s name, but having done so he is entitled to assist at a Mass which is neither heretical nor to my mind schismatic…

Supporters of the St Pius X Society are in my view entitled to complete certainty that none of the priests serving them was ‘ordained’ merely in the disputed new rite, whether vernacular or Latin. When such certainty is not assured, about any particular celebrant, the faithful should refuse to attend his Mass…
(Fr Baker in his parish bulletin for October 1983.)


If you have evidence that he changed this advice later, please present it. Of course, your own testimony about his position when you knew him (which it sounds like you did) would be considered evidence.

Of the Oyster Bay Nine (or twelve!), Fr. Collins, Fr. Skierka, Fr. Zapp, Fr. Ahern, and Fr. Berry all hold the position expressed by Fr. Baker above, to my best knowledge. The fifteen priests of the CMRI all hold this same position - it is the official position of the CMRI. Of the priests who hold the opposing view, the vast bulk are Guerardians, not "full sedevacantists." Examples include Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Ricossa (although the latter priest told my sister that he would not forbid me assisting at the SSPX here in Perth). I could also name several other "independent" sedevacantist priests who hold my position on this - certainly sufficient to outweigh the balance of the Oyster Bay Nine, for example.

I do concede that the situation is shifting, however, as the Guerardian-originated "anti-una cum" campaign has begun to bite with sedevacantist priests and laymen. For example, Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan have adopted this position recently (i.e. in the past few years).

The SSPV are also on the "anti" side of the ledger, I think. But in their case credibility is totally lacking (on this subject only). I say that because they illegally refuse the sacraments to laymen who disagree with them on the validity and lawfulness of the Thuc orders.

Pia wrote:
I have had many years to have a long hard think John. Whilst I could spend some time telling you what I believe the 'difference' is I am not sure that it would be to any avail as I think others, including Father Baker, have probably done a better job than I could and still not convinced you. In any event if you are asking whether I think the religion emanating from what purports to be the Catholic Church in Rome is a false religion I would say yes it is. It certainly is not the Catholic religion that I know. A false set of beliefs and practices? - I suppose in some ways that is the same as a false religion. A false Church - depends on which definition of Church we are using - buildings, people, faith????


We have misunderstood each other. I was referring to your comments as follows:
Pia wrote:
It is true that the magesterium of the Church has not spoken on the sede vacantist question but those who hold it to be true cannot but consider that those who acknowledge the modernists popes are acknowleging a false religion. It is not the same, as for instance could have occurred prior to Vatican I, if some Catholics did not agree with the question of the infallibility of the pope. Had I been around at the time I could have quite happily acknowledged my fellow Catholic's right to hold a different view on this (as some believed Cardinal Newman did) right up until the pronouncment. Only after the pronouncement, if they did not submit, would I have felt that I could no longer hold my peace. This situation is indeed different.


You are arguing that we must treat the SSPX the same as we treat Protestants. You appear to be arguing that this is because they ought to know better and therefore we cannot presume their good faith in what we believe to be their error. I am asking you to justify this claim of yours. It is a very big point. You say that we do not have to await the judgement of the Church. To my mind that is merely a way of equating your judgement with that of Rome. Do you see this? If so, how do you explain that it is not the case?

Pia wrote:
If I gave the impression that I did not think they were Catholics then I am sorry I should have been more specific.


If they are Catholics, then you must apply to them the dictum of St. Ignatius. This is not optional.

Pia wrote:
They believe mistakenly that the Church to which they are showing allegiance has the true Catholic Faith - they are wrong. In the Reformation there were validly ordained priests who offered the Catholic Mass but were I alive then I would not have dreamt of assisting at one of their Masses.


Why not? If they offered a Catholic Mass they must have been Catholic priests.

Pia wrote:
If acknowledging 'Benedict XVI' as Pope is wrong then we must condemn it as wrong and not give scandal by assisting at the Mass of a priest who acknowledges him as Pope.


So you are reducing this to the question of scandal. Is that correct? If so, let's talk about scandal. I'll await your response before commenting on that - it is a big subject.

Pia wrote:
Precisely John but you cannot have it both ways, you cannot always 'sit on the fence'. We are required to make judgements and we are required to choose. And we must choose the truth.

Pia


Sure, but whom do you think is on the fence? Me, or the SSPX? And if the later, how do you escape the clear implication that you are imposing your own private judgement on them?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:12 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
John wrote:
For example, Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan have adopted this position recently (i.e. in the past few years).


Wouldn't there be some presumption that they adopted this position way back when they left the SSPX? Is there some evidence that they were indifferent to the question at that time, or in intermediate years?


Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:59 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Geoff Tribbe wrote:
Wouldn't there be some presumption that they adopted this position way back when they left the SSPX? Is there some evidence that they were indifferent to the question at that time, or in intermediate years?


Well Geoff, you could ask them, but yes, I know from a conversation with them almost ten years ago that their position did not used to be what it is now.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:31 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
I have a copy here of Catholic Restoration with the original "Una Cum" article. It is the Jan/Feb 1993 issue. Also several articles from 1991 thru 1994 critical of the SSPX position.

What exactly has changed in the past few years? It is unclear to me.

The very recent article in The Angelus on the validity of the new rites of ordination is one thing maybe? And the recent interview with Bp. Fellay certainly stirred things up as well.


Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:18 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I have a copy here of Catholic Restoration with the original "Una Cum" article. It is the Jan/Feb 1993 issue. Also several articles from 1991 thru 1994 critical of the SSPX position.

What exactly has changed in the past few years? It is unclear to me.


What changed is the position that a sedevacantist may not assist at a Mass in which a false pope is mentioned in the Canon. For the sake of brevity I call this the "anti-una cum" position. But for Bishop Sanborn that change occurred much earlier, because he is a Guerardian and has been since some time around 1990-93, I think. Hence the Catholic Restoration articles. Catholic Restoration was Bishop (at that time “Father”) Sanborn's periodical.

We're all against the SSPX position. We're all against the mention of a heretic's name in the Canon of the Mass. We're all against V2 and the new religion. However, until Bishop Guerard des Lauriers developed his theory that the V2 claimants were "materially popes but not formally popes" it was not generally argued that sedevacantists (i.e. including Guerardians) must avoid Masses offered by non-sedevacantists. But Bishop Guerard did argue that position, and his followers adopted it wholesale.

But that position did not become popular with (non-Guerardian) sedevacantist clerics or laymen until some time in the 'nineties, and even then I don't think you could call it "popular." See the data presented above.

I have been an intellectually active sedevacantist since 1989. I did not hear about the "anti-una cum" stance of Guerard des Lauriers until Fr. Sanborn published the Catholic Restoration article on it in 1993. And it was only a few years ago that Fr. Cekada changed position, and even then not publicly to begin with. I also happen to know that Bishop McKenna did not hold the Guerardian "anti-una cum" position in the late 'nineties, because I spoke to him at length about it. And that was despite his own adherence to the "material pope" thesis. He has shifted to the harder-line position since, if I recall accurately.

I don't think people realise quite how narrow this little novelty was. We are not speaking about claims that sedeplenists are not Catholics. It is true that some sedevacantists held that view. We are not speaking about claims that the Orders of Archbishop Lefebvre are not valid. It is true that some held that view. We are not speaking about the “Who Sent?” argument that only priests ordained by a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction are legitimate Catholic priests. It is true that some sedevacantists have held that view also. And lastly, we are not talking about the argument that if there is a Mass offered by a sedeplenist and another offered by a sedevacantist, and both are within reasonable reach, one should prefer the Mass offered by the sedevacantist. That is a very common position held by (probably) most sedevacantists.

We are talking about the "anti-una cum" stance by which it is argued that sedevacantists must in no case assist at a Mass offered by a (admittedly Catholic) priest who thinks that Benedict XVI is pope and thus inserts his name in the Canon. That position is a Guerardian novelty, and to this day is not popular with non-Guerardian sedevacantist priests, although as already said, its popularity is growing.

I hope this assists to clarify what is at issue.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:40 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Please excuse my brief reply to you all but I am away on business for a couple of weeks. I hope I may return to clarify my views and hopefully learn some answers too!.
(Might also learn how to use quotes - it must be my inferior intelligence that someone mentioned 'sede vacantist' Catholics have!)

I knew Father Baker all my life and I am indeed aware of his published statement though at this stage I have not the actual date to hand. All I will say for the moment is that in 1980 I, and others who hold the sede vacantist view, were told quite plainly by Father Baker that we should not whilst we had access to a priest of the sede vacantist view attend or assist at an SSPX Mass. He qualified this by saying in danger of death it would be understandable. He acknowledged the validity of those SSPX priests ordained in the old rite and received them into his home - only when he was dying however - I also know availed himself of confession from an SSPX priest. I do not think that he ever received Holy Communion from one but can check this. As to scandal again I know for a fact that he initially asked an SSPX priest to bury him when he thought it impossible, and also too costly, to fly a priest to the UK to bury him. He did however try his best to ensure that the priest who did bury him held the sede vacante position and would NOT say an Una Cum Mass. A few days before he died however he stated that he felt it would be too scandalous to have an SSPX priest bury him. Unfortunately after his death the person in charge of his funeral, to their great regret, was swayed by others to allow this to happen.

As I say I hope you will forgive my brevity for the time being but having read your last post John it is interesting to note that Father Baker never held the Guerardian theory, as I am sure you know, and yet was 'hard-line' so to speak.

I do thank you for your time and patience and if you, or anyone else on this forum can show me that I am wrong then I will submit and be very grateful for your care. I hope to return to these questions on my return for, as you say John, it is very important and is I believe the 'key'.

Pia


Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:00 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I have a copy here of Catholic Restoration with the original "Una Cum" article. It is the Jan/Feb 1993 issue. Also several articles from 1991 thru 1994 critical of the SSPX position.

What exactly has changed in the past few years? It is unclear to me.


What changed is the position that a sedevacantist may not assist at a Mass in which a false pope is mentioned in the Canon. For the sake of brevity I call this the "anti-una cum" position. But for Bishop Sanborn that change occurred much earlier, because he is a Guerardian and has been since some time around 1990-93, I think. Hence the Catholic Restoration articles. Catholic Restoration was Bishop (at that time “Father”) Sanborn's periodical.

We're all against the SSPX position. We're all against the mention of a heretic's name in the Canon of the Mass. We're all against V2 and the new religion. However, until Bishop Guerard des Lauriers developed his theory that the V2 claimants were "materially popes but not formally popes" it was not generally argued that sedevacantists (i.e. including Guerardians) must avoid Masses offered by non-sedevacantists. But Bishop Guerard did argue that position, and his followers adopted it wholesale.

But that position did not become popular with (non-Guerardian) sedevacantist clerics or laymen until some time in the 'nineties, and even then I don't think you could call it "popular." See the data presented above.

I have been an intellectually active sedevacantist since 1989. I did not hear about the "anti-una cum" stance of Guerard des Lauriers until Fr. Sanborn published the Catholic Restoration article on it in 1993. And it was only a few years ago that Fr. Cekada changed position, and even then not publicly to begin with. I also happen to know that Bishop McKenna did not hold the Guerardian "anti-una cum" position in the late 'nineties, because I spoke to him at length about it. And that was despite his own adherence to the "material pope" thesis. He has shifted to the harder-line position since, if I recall accurately.

I don't think people realise quite how narrow this little novelty was. We are not speaking about claims that sedeplenists are not Catholics. It is true that some sedevacantists held that view. We are not speaking about claims that the Orders of Archbishop Lefebvre are not valid. It is true that some held that view. We are not speaking about the “Who Sent?” argument that only priests ordained by a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction are legitimate Catholic priests. It is true that some sedevacantists have held that view also. And lastly, we are not talking about the argument that if there is a Mass offered by a sedeplenist and another offered by a sedevacantist, and both are within reasonable reach, one should prefer the Mass offered by the sedevacantist. That is a very common position held by (probably) most sedevacantists.

We are talking about the "anti-una cum" stance by which it is argued that sedevacantists must in no case assist at a Mass offered by a (admittedly Catholic) priest who thinks that Benedict XVI is pope and thus inserts his name in the Canon. That position is a Guerardian novelty, and to this day is not popular with non-Guerardian sedevacantist priests, although as already said, its popularity is growing.

I hope this assists to clarify what is at issue.


John,

My opinion, for what it's worth...

1. To the above, we are in agreement.

2. Should we avoid these "una-cum" Masses if we can reasonably avoid them? I think yes.

3. In this avoidance, should we cut ourselves off from those who assist at these Masses? No, those who assist at these Masses are Catholics.

4. In this avoidance, should we become "home aloners" if that's what it takes? No.

I believe the SSPX position to be illogical and that their position should not be supported in any way. Some may say a SV attending an SSPX chapel supports that position implicitly but this cannot be avoided without becoming a home aloner. I do believe the SSPX are mistaken in their position. In my humble and many times flawed opinion, it is a huge flaw in their otherwise fruitful apostolate. This is, I believe, similar to the position that Bp. Pivarunas makes clear in his 2002 article, "The Campos Defection"

http://www.cmri.org/102prog3.html

I wonder sometimes what my position would be if I had not been exposed to the SV position many years ago and had instead attended an SSPX chapel...would I be a SV today or would I be arguing against the SV position?

In my case did geography determine theology? :)

I would like to think that I would still be a SV today...but after spending some time debating against the anti-SV position I'm not so sure that would be the case.


Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:36 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Quote:
4. In this avoidance, should we become "home aloners" if that's what it takes? No.


Disclaimer: The crunching noise you hear is me trying to tiptoe around on the eggshells.

It's obvious from Bishop Sanborn's most recent statements that he would answer this question emphatically in the affirmative


Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:23 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:31 am
Posts: 76
Location: Overland Park, KS
New post 
I'm very, very late to this discussion, but I thought I might get a clarification on the distinction between sedevacantist and sedeplenist? Is the latter the same as sede-privationist?

Still learning about this stuff...

s.

_________________
Stephen Heiner
www.stephenheiner.com


Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:30 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
dedalus wrote:
I'm very, very late to this discussion, but I thought I might get a clarification on the distinction between sedevacantist and sedeplenist? Is the latter the same as sede-privationist?

Still learning about this stuff...

s.


Dear Stephen,

A sedeplenist is a person who thinks the Holy See is occupied ("filled"). The late, great, Bill Morgan used to deploy the term "sedeoccupantist" for the same purpose. The term "sedeprivationist" was also invented by Bill Morgan, I think, and refers to Guerardians - that is, followers of Bishop Guerard des Lauriers' Cassiciacum Thesis (the so-called "material pope" theory). They say that the non-pope must still be deprived by some legal process of his claim to the papacy.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Geoff Tribbe wrote:
Quote:
4. In this avoidance, should we become "home aloners" if that's what it takes? No.


Disclaimer: The crunching noise you hear is me trying to tiptoe around on the eggshells.

It's obvious from Bishop Sanborn's most recent statements that he would answer this question emphatically in the affirmative


Geoff,

Why must we be walking on eggshells? :)

I'm not sure what recent statements you are refering to but I'll suggest that we reread some of Bp. Sanborn's eariler articles for a little perspective.

http://catholicrestoration.org/library/dissent.htm


Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:57 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Quote:
Why must we be walking on eggshells?
I'm not sure what recent statements you are refering to but I'll suggest that we reread ...


Because....

If one reads Bishop Sanborn's most recent statements (and I do not claim that I have gotten this right) he says that attendance at an "una cum" Mass is objectively an evil, and for one who has access to the arguments and sufficient understanding, it is a grave sin. Or so I understand him.


Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:51 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Geoff Tribbe wrote:
Quote:
Why must we be walking on eggshells?
I'm not sure what recent statements you are refering to but I'll suggest that we reread ...


Because....

If one reads Bishop Sanborn's most recent statements (and I do not claim that I have gotten this right) he says that attendance at an "una cum" Mass is objectively an evil, and for one who has access to the arguments and sufficient understanding, it is a grave sin. Or so I understand him.


I may be mistaken, but I don't think Bp. Sanborn is intending to bind anyone's conscience here. He cannot do that. I may be mistaken again, but isn't Bp. Sanborn merely making the case for this position. If one is pursuaded by it and it seems to make sense then one must follow his conscience. If I find the case compelling enough to accept it, may I impose what my conscience tells me on another? If Bp. Sanborn cannot bind ones conscience, then a layman certainly can't.

Fr. Sanborn-Dissent of Faith wrote:
"In the first place, let me state that I have no authority, and therefore whatever I say cannot take the place of the authority of the Catholic Church. It is impossible for me or anyone else who lacks authority to raise to the level of dogma anything at all, and it is likewise impossible for anyone who lacks authority to bind the consciences of others.

The only function I can perform is to point out what the teaching of the Catholic Church, the true Faith, is, and even this I do not do with infallibility. The force in a Catholic's conscience can only be the teaching authority of the Catholic Church; any substitution made for that authority constitutes the very spirit of heresy."

When I say, therefore, that it is impossible that Wojtyla be pope, and that it is necessary for Catholics to reject him as pope, I am merely pointing out that there is a necessary logical connection between saying that he has altered the Faith, on the one hand, and that he is not the pope on the other.


I have not attended all that many SSPX and non-SV independant Masses. Some I may have assisted at were "una cum"... some may not have been...I don't know. I have been out of town on some occassions where there was a local SSPX Mass on Sunday. That was all that was available. So do I not assist at Mass on that Sunday? I made the decision to attend Mass. I believe it is a Catholic Mass offered by a Catholic Priest who rejects V2 and the authority of both "the Pope" and the local "Bishop". This does not mean that if there were an "una cum" Mass in my city that I would attend it. I would not.

Also, when I said eariler that "In my case did geography determine theology?" I'll add that I am quite grateful for my "geography" as it has made understanding the proper theology much less painful. I am also grateful to all the Traditional Priests that I have had contact with over the years. They all need our prayers in these most difficult of times.


Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:49 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Father Oswald Baker on allegiance to the Vatican II popes. ( 22nd July 1984)


“The conduct and effects of the Second Vatican Council were such that few, even today, it seems, have realised how revolutionary, how subversive, and how catastrophic the Council was. We here have already considered the various errors and evils of Vatican II. Let us recall just one. The new notion of the Church of Christ which it propounded.
Modifying the essential and unalterable claim that the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church is the sole Church of Christ, the Council actually changed ‘is’, in its original document, to ‘subsists in’. Whatever references might be made to e.g. the fullness of (grace or) truth in the Catholic Church, the (deliberate) change of verb clearly allowed henceforth some little modulation and re-interpretation of what all non-Catholics have always resented as offensive Catholic claim. The Council asserted our fundamental unity with non-Catholics with whom Catholics are united in the search for truth, and whose sects are divinely approved collaborators with the Catholic Church in bringing salvation to the world. We and they are striving for the unity which Christ desired. (Such contemptuous degrading and discrediting of the Church of God, the Body of Christ, was assuredly as near to open blasphemy as the Council could come.) Accordingly, joint services (with non-Catholics) are in order, and non-Catholics may. On occasion, receive the Catholic Eucharist.
At the heart of this new, widened ecumenical institution, self-styled the Conciliar Church is, in place of the Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass which true Protestants have always abhorred, a new ecumenical Eucharistic Service called the New Mass, a Service so framed that it is perfectly acceptable to non-Catholics who reject the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence.
All of which, independently of other errors, is such a radical and complete departure from Catholicism, that an institution with such novel beliefs and practices is quite plainly and emphatically no longer Catholic. Its head, not being a Catholic, cannot possibly be the Pope. Whether he be devout or sinful, smiling or grumpy, traveller or stay-at-home, is totally irrelevant. What is alone relevant is that the religion he practices, promotes and praises, as the glorious heritage of Vatican II, is the new false religion launched by that Council. It is not Catholicism. If it were, allegiance would indeed be due. Since it is not, allegiance to him is gravely sinful………….. Would Our Lord still have commanded, “All things whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do” (Matt.23-8)? The Sanhedrin did not advocate the abandonment of the divine religion of the Chosen People. The religion of Vatican II is not the Divine Faith of Our Fathers. It is the satanic religion of Modernism and ecumenism.”


This is the essential point, and it in no way signifies judgement of an individual soul and we must forbear to impute guilt, which is known only to the soul and God. However, it is impossible to align oneself with something which is gravely sinful and, yes, scandal does matter. So it has always been in the Catholic Church. Deliberately to drown oneself is a sin, suicide, thus the person who commits suicide is buried quietly; the divorced man/woman who continues to live with the person who is not their spouse, is barred from receiving Holy Communion (even if there are no marital relations), etc. Charity wrongly interpreted is very dangerous.

Assisting at the Mass of an SSPX priest, and even more serving the Mass of an SSPX priest, is to place oneself in a dangerous position – one that is not safe.

What would the martyrs of England, the Catholics who risked life and limb to bring in priests from the Continent, think of your statement John, that you would have no problem assisting at the Mass of a ‘priest’ who had left the Church of Rome in the Reformation? It is to mock them indeed.

We have no right to judge another’s guilt before God but, we do and must judge his actions and words and stay well clear of anything that is contrary to our Faith. It may be that some souls are given special graces to expose their souls and resist the errors of the SSPX but it is very dangerous indeed to take on the burden of keeping souls out of the Church by appearing to condone those who obstinately refuse to renounce the Conciliar Church and their leaders and repeatedly try to come to terms with it.

Pia


Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:34 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Sorry about the smilely it was supposed to be an eight!

Pia


Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:36 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
pia wrote:
However, it is impossible to align oneself with something which is gravely sinful and, yes, scandal does matter.


Dear Pia,

You need to provide the definition of scandal and show how attendance at an SSPX Mass is scandalous and/or gravely sinful.

From an article by Fr. Cekada that contains a definition of scandal, we read the following:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... catname=14

Fr. Cekada wrote:
Definition: “Some word or deed (whether of omission or commission) that (1) is itself evil, or (2) has the appearance of evil, AND (3) provides an occasion of sin for another.” THEOLOGIAN Prümmer, Moral Theology, 230, DOC 14.

• Comment: For someone to commit the sin of scandal, his word or deed must in the first place either:

(1) be evil, or

(2) have the appearance of evil.


Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:23 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dear Pia,

(Ever noticed that that rhymes?)

Three things.

1. What does the ellipsis represent, here? "Since it is not, allegiance to him is gravely sinful…………"

2. To my mind there is no point responding to your further comments above, because we have already answered these points and evidently you either didn’t understand or understood but rejected the answers given.

3. As a question of fact, I did not write, and I do not think, that it is permissible to assist at the Mass of a priest who has left the Church. That you are confused about this very plain question of fact illustrates why we should agree to disagree in all charity, and move on to another subject.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:58 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
John,

1. What ellipsis? The sentence was complete. If my typing gave the impression that it was not I apologise.

2. This remark is both arrogant and uncharitable. Please point out where/what points I have misunderstood or understood but rejected.

3. As a question of fact in reply to my statement you are correct. However I believe you did know what I meant when I wrote " In the Reformation there were validly ordained priests who offered the Catholic Mass but were I alive then I would not have dreamt of assisting at one of them." Your reply was either facetious or, you knew exactly what I meant and I was right to assume as I did. I accept that my statement was unclear but in answering you show:

1. Your lack of understanding and

2. Your false notion of Charity

There is a prevalence amongst some Catholic laymen, and priests(unfortunately), to think that it is both clever and amusing to answer their critics in a waspish, self- aggrandised kind of way - it is not - and it is this that does such harm to the Catholic cause.

As I said in an earlier post it is you that have chosen to either misunderstand Father Baker's position or to understand but reject it. I was merely trying to clarify it I am obviously woefully lacking in my ability to do this.

As one Bishop has stated "How unfortunate it is that priests sometimes can be tangled in useless, ongoing "debates", with pseudo lay-theologians who become obsessed with this or that particular theological point. These debates very often accomplish nothing but a waste of time (besdies paper and ink). I am sure the devil is pleased to see priests become distracted with such arguments, for it takes them away from being fishers of men."

As to your 'definition' of scandal - firstly I can see no contradiction with what Fr Cekada has said but as St Gregory said "Better that scandal be given than the truth withheld".

You are right the debate is pointless.

Pia


Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:22 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
I accept that my statement was unclear but in answering you show:

1. Your lack of understanding and

2. Your false notion of Charity

There is a prevalence amongst some Catholic laymen, and priests(unfortunately), to think that it is both clever and amusing to answer their critics in a waspish, self- aggrandised kind of way - it is not - and it is this that does such harm to the Catholic cause.


Please forgive me for whatever faults I display.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:02 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Pia quoting Fr. Baker wrote:
All of which, independently of other errors, is such a radical and complete departure from Catholicism, that an institution with such novel beliefs and practices is quite plainly and emphatically no longer Catholic. Its head, not being a Catholic, cannot possibly be the Pope. Whether he be devout or sinful, smiling or grumpy, traveller or stay-at-home, is totally irrelevant. What is alone relevant is that the religion he practices, promotes and praises, as the glorious heritage of Vatican II, is the new false religion launched by that Council. It is not Catholicism. If it were, allegiance would indeed be due. Since it is not, allegiance to him is gravely sinful.


Dear Pia,

I don't think the debate is pointless; far from it.

Does this allegience (of which Fr. Baker speaks) refer to the error of saying you recognize Benedict but grant him no real allegience or is it more likely the error of actually granting him allegience...and following him in his false religion? The latter is the position of the Indult.

The SSPX position cannot be considered the same as the Indult. Would you agree?

The difficulty I have with the "England" analogy is that at that time there was a "Church of Rome" and a "Church of England". There were two distinct heirarchies that claimed jurisdiction. The situation today is quite different. It is extraordinary. The tendency seems to be to try to make things as ordinary as possible...I try to do this...but we must never think that the situation today actually is ordinary...it is not.

If it is not clear already, let me say I am not a supporter of the SSPX. They do not have a clear theological position. I also believe there are consequences to this lack of a coherent theological position. But I do not believe that they have any allegiance to the V2 religion and its head, Benedict XVI. I know that some followers of SSPX claim that they are ...in some way... in union with Rome. But they are not. Some SV chapel attendees also claim some union with the local diocese...but there is none.

The problem is that most Traditional Catholics do not understand the issues. Consider the following from the late Rama P. Coomaraswamy (with whom I agree on this point):

Rama Coomaraswamy wrote:
"What I am saying here is that our traditional priests, because they do not see the writing on the wall, have not taught our laity ... and we are responsible for doing this ... we have not taught out laity what it means to be Catholic. We have been satisfied with letting them think it means going to the Tridentine Mass and supporting the chapel of their choice. We have inherited a certain contemptuous attitude towards the laity as if they had no other function than to support the clergy. I have even heard it said that “spirituality is not for the laity,” a truly shocking statement. And so it is that we are asking them to support a war in which they should be soldiers, but, at the same time we are asking them to fight without arms.

I am aware that they are given sermons. But if you doubt what I say, ask them, as I have, what the fight is all about. Most of them are completely confused as to what doctrinal issues separate us from the new and false post-Conciliar establishment. Protocol 1411 is correct in stating that for many of them their attachment to the traditional Mass is “psychological,” and if proof of this is required, just look at what has happened when the Indult Mass is made available. Across the country traditional priests have seen their parishes emptied as the local bishops provide an Indult Mass (or some other “Latin” Mass) to satisfy their psychological needs. They have no idea that they have in fact joined the enemy and in doing so have cut their own spiritual throats. They have in essence, “sacrificed to the gods of Rome.”

Those who accept the Indult Mass - be they priests or laity - must recognize that in doing so they are accepting the entire post-Conciliar establishment, Vatican II and the NOM. In doing so, they immediately declare themselves part of the problem. They may decry the post-Conciliar church and insist on their conservative position. They may even think they are somehow preserving the faith. But facts are facts. They are recognizing and embracing the authority of the current post-Conciliar hierarchy; they are accepting all the sacramental changes; all the encyclicals and doctrinal statements of John Paul II; Their conservative opinions are just that, opinions, and they have no more force than the most liberal opinions of any fellow priest-president. This is precisely why the post-Conciliar hierarchy allows them to use the Indult. In order to see this, one has to understand what will happen in the not too distant future. At some point the Indult will be withdrawn. This is not a speculation. They have told us that they intend to do this. What then - an uneducated laity, a laity without leadership will be swept into the new church without resistance.

Traditional priests have hesitated to teach the faithful the fullness of the Truth. They do not want to talk about these issues because it raises the specter of the Pope and they fear many of their congregation will leave. This is a compromise with the truth. It is not that they have to tell the congregation from the pulpit that he isn’t the pope - much less provide them with the almost incomprehensible theory of his being a material but not a formal pope. Rather, it requires that the priest explain to them the nature of authority and how authority ... if present in the present incumbents... is from Christ. And if this is so, then they have to accept an authority from Rome that demands they give up their Catholic faith. As Paul said, “even if an angel from heaven...” This takes time... more time than a sermon during Mass.

There is only one solution. The laity need to be educated. This requires, at this time probably two nights a week of intense study and direction. I am told that people are too busy. Fine. Then don’t complain if they leave the faith when nick comes to tuck because they really don’t have the faith. They are not going to die for what they have and in a war we need soldiers who are willing to die. It’s that simple. You say they are too busy. Well, I am sure if you gave them a lecture on how they could make more money in the market they would be willing to give you two nights a week for that. It is not that every person in the congregation is capable of understanding these things. But many are and a certain degree of selectivity would be required. Christ’s parable of the talents is pertinent. We must create leaders among the laity who have the same obligations to God as priests have ... by this I mean, the same obligations to be Catholic and live the Catholic life to the best of their ability ... they also have talents they must answer for. We must get rid of our contempt for the soldiers in the trenches and realize that while their paths are different than that of the priests, they are also called in their own way to be alter Christus. And as for the priests who are too busy - I have heard this excuse more than once. The priests are meant to give until they bleed ... like their Divine Master. I see little evidence of this at this time. (And may I also add, mea culpa.) The Cure of Ars never said he was too busy."


Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:01 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Robert,

I remember well Rama Coomaraswamy and who can deny that what he writes is true. Thank you for bringing it to mind again.

You state "The SSPX position cannot be considered the same as the Indult." If you mean by this that the Indultists are happy to seek permission of the Ordinary to offer the 1962 Mass whilst the SSPX are not then - yes - they have different positions. However I am unsure of your meaning when you say "the error of saying you recognise (my italics) Benedict but grant him no real (again my italics) allegiance". What can this possibly mean? To recognise Benedict could mean that he is somebody previously known, or it could mean to admit him as somebody of a particular status or having validity, or it could mean that they show their appreciation of him - to which meaning are we placing the recognition of Benedict by the SSPX? What is 'real' allegiance? Do the SSPX show 'fake' allegiance? I do not think so.

Let us recall the words of Archbishop Lefebvre:

"The Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new liturgy, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive. This Conciliar Church therefore is not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or laity adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church."

Benedict has been elected by this Satanic institution as its leader. A true Catholic can no more offer allegiance to him than to the Archbishop of Canterbury. To acclaim him as the 'Holy Father' is beyond a true Catholic's comprehension.

We cannot say that because the Church, in its usual manner, has not publicly declared the Conciliar Church to be schismatic that we must therefore not 'judge' (in the external sense) those who adhere to it or recognise it in any shape or form. This is a ridiculous notion. If you believe that what purports to be the Catholic Church is no longer the Catholic Church and that the head of that Church is not the pope then you must surely believe that the Church will in the future condemn it as such and as such we should show no allegiance to it or to its head. It is inconceivable that a valid pope would ever sanction birth control or women priests. As Catholics we know that it is impossible and we have nothing to do with those who advocate such un-Catholic practices. Millions of Catholics have lost the Faith in the sense that they were robbed of it and it is difficult to see how those responsible can be exonerated.

A priest is not only capable but is obliged to make up his mind about whether Benedict and his predecessors are false popes. A priest has ample knowledge of the conditions and qualifications required to make an authentic pope and he must make a decision because he and his people need to know with clarity and certainty which religion has his allegiance - Catholicism or the new Conciliar Church and Benedict XVI.

No bishop or priest should be acknowledging Benedict XVI as the head of the Catholic Church. No bishop or priest should be asking Benedict XVI to admit that the Tridentine rite of Mass is of equal status as the Novus Ordo - the Tridentine rite of Mass as promulgated by Pope Pius V is the ONLY Mass of the One, Holy and Apostolic (Catholic) Church of God.

I agree that there is a difficulty with the analogy of 'England'. And you are undoubtedly right that these are Extraordinary times.

Pia


Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:58 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:07 am
Posts: 32
Location: Spokane WA.
New post 
LeoXIII wrote:
I have never seen the dogma that states that we must make a correct judgement on the validity of the Roman Pontiff, so I refrain from such judgement until such a time as the the Lord God straightens things out.

It is not their failure to make a correct judgment on the validity of the Roman Pontiff which I find objectionable. Our current situation is complex and reasonable men may disagree. If the SSPX held that in the current situation the post counciliar popes are valid and the reason why these “popes” have said and done the things they have is a mystery I would give no objection.

The objection is to the unorthodox conclusions which are the result of their position. The SSPX theory gives rise to a series of contradictions. When a contradiction appears in the SSPX theory rather than having the humility to admit that their theory is in error they dig in and defend their indefensible theory. To defend their position the SSPX is compelled to reject things which are of faith.

The SSPX theory rests on a series of false principles. I do not possess the skill to express my objection to the SSPX position as clearly as others. So if you will allow me to use the words of Aquinian to identify some of these false principles.

Aquinian skillfully identifies some of the false principles of the SSPX:

Aquinian wrote:
1. False principle: Untrained laymen can ignore or disagree with the consensus of theologians.
2. False principle: Even if a man were a manifest heretic, we could not tell, because we do not have “authority.”
3. False principle: It is permissible to ignore the pope.
4. False principle: It is permissible to disagree with the content of Papal Encyclicals.
5. False principle: It is permissible to consecrate bishops against the explicit instructions of the Roman Pontiff.
6. False principle: Holy Church cannot impose an evil “Mass” de jure, but her hierarchy can trick the Faithful into receiving one as de jure, leaving the Faithful at the mercy of clever lawyers who can work out the tricky legalisms for them.
7. False principle: Holy Church can mistakenly declare solemnly that somebody is in heaven (i.e. canonise him).
8. False principle: Men can be proponents of “a whole new religion” but remain Catholics.
9. False principle: It is impossible to leave the Church in the eyes of the law unless and until one is excommunicated ferendae sententiae.
10. False principle: A Catholic can treat the legitimacy of the pope as a matter of no moment.


There is more to being a Catholic than a valid Latin Mass. The Catholic faith is a seamless garment therefore to reject any one part of Catholic teaching is to reject the entire garment. This is why I believe the position of the SSPX to be as dangerous as the new church. They accept nearly the entire series of Catholic teachings yet they reject the authority of the pope. What a mess. What kind of a church do these SSPX principles make? How could there ever be restoration? Let us imagine for a moment that a solution is found to our crisis and a true and valid pope once again rules from Rome. He would rule over a church that felt free to pick and choose which of his commands fit into their view of tradition.


Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:57 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dear Crusader,

Let's take care to make all of the necessary distinctions, for we are discussing others' consciences.

Crusader wrote:
The objection is to the unorthodox conclusions which are the result of their position. The SSPX theory gives rise to a series of contradictions.


Crusader wrote:
The SSPX theory rests on a series of false principles.


Which is it? Does the SSPX position rest upon false principles, or do they arise from it?

My view, since you've taken my own words as useful commentary, is that their position rests upon sound principles and gives rise to unsound principles. Chris Ferrara and other anti-sedevacantists, however, always employ false principles to defend their position. Or at least, that's my experience. My guess is that they do this because they are ignorant. But the SSPX hierarchy are not ignorant. They are mistaken, but that is not caused by ignorance. It is caused by a difference of judgement – that is, in applying true principles badly.

Which sound principles underpin the SSPX position? In my judgement, they are the following:

1. True principle: Junior clerics and laymen ought not to judge others unless absolutely necessary, and especially not their superiors. Thus, any judgement that another is a heretic should be an exceptional thing, and this applies a fortiori to bishops.

2. True principle: The peaceful acceptance of a papal claimant by the entire Church guarantees the presence of all of the necessary prerequisites of validity.

3. True principle: Only those laws which are certain oblige. A doubtful law does not oblige. The V2 revolution was carried on by Satan with all of the experience of two thousand years of prodding and poking the Church so as to discover her soft points and her hard points, so to speak, and the irritants which would produce the worst and best (from his perspective) reactions. In his masterful cunning he realised that the greatest possible confusion would be produced if he made the “reforms” appear ever so slightly lacking in those elements which go to produce an obligation. Thus, the rhetoric about V2 being “pastoral”; the use by Paul VI of the novel term “supreme magisterium” when providing “clarification” about the doctrinal authority of V2; the start-stop-start promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae with its heretical General Instruction and subsequent correction; etcetera. Good men were confused about what was obligatory and what wasn’t. Was the Novus Ordo lawfully promulgated at all? Was it imposed or only offered? Was V2 obligatory? It is easy to forget that every single bishop understood that V2 was a valid general council of the Church at the time it was promulgated, including Archbishop Lefebvre. Such deception was not a result merely of the bishops being stinkers (although many of them were).

4. True principle: We must obey God rather than men. It is licit to resist a superior who commands something sinful, because we may never sin for any reason. (Fr. Cekada alleges that the theologians who apply this principle to popes only ever speak of it in relation to popes as temporal rulers, but I am not convinced this is true. I do hope he produces some quotes so that one of us may be corrected and retract our position.)

5. True principle: We must not tempt God by taking extraordinary actions unless absolutely necessary. Thus St. Thomas More waited until after he was condemned to death before openly criticising the schismatic actions of Henry VIII. (And some sedevacantists would doubtless have accused him of liberalism for this silence!)

6. True principle: In doubtful matters we may accept the judgements of our superiors. St. Antoninus, commenting on the Great Western Schism: “For as long as the schism lasted each obedience had in its favour men who were very learned in scripture and Canon Law, and even very pious people, including some who – what is much more – were illustrious by the gift of miracles. Nonetheless the question could never be settled without leaving the minds of many still in doubt. Doubtless we must believe that, just as there are not several Catholic Churches, but only one, so there is only one Vicar of Christ who is its pastor. But if it should occur that, by a schism, several popes are elected at the same time, it does not seem necessary for salvation to believe that this or that one in particular is the true pope, but just in general whichever of them was canonically elected. The people are not obliged to know who was canonically elected, just as they are not obliged to know canon law; in this matter they may follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates.” (St. Antoninus, pars 3, tit. 22, cap. 2.)

OK let’s consider how these principles are (mis)applied to produce the sedeplenist position.

Principle #1 produces the (entirely sound) disinclination to form any negative judgements about others, especially judgements of mortal sin against Faith and the loss of office attendant upon that crime.

Principle #2 produces the (difficult to dispute) conclusion that John XXIII and Paul VI were true popes – the former for his entire reign and the latter at least until he promulgated the documents of V2. Thus in the sedeplenist mind if the suspected heretic, architect and originator of V2, John XXIII, was a Vicar of Christ, and the openly revolutionary Communist-sympathising Paul VI was also, then exactly what would suffice to disqualify a claimant to the papacy?

Principle #3 is combined with a reading of the facts of V2 and the reforms which followed it to produce the conclusion that the authority of the Church was (miraculously) Providentially not implicated in the revolution. This argument won’t wash, but it’s hardly ridiculous on its face.

Principle #4 provides to the sedeplenist mind a sufficient (minimalist) basis for resisting the revolution, without violating principle #5. These two principles and the manner of their combination constitute the key to Archbishop Lefebvre’s mind and of his policy.

Principle #6 explains the apparent complacency of numerous good priests in the face of our superlative and unanswerable arguments. :)

Crusader wrote:
So if you will allow me to use the words of Aquinian to identify some of these false principles.

Aquinian skillfully identifies some of the false principles of the SSPX:


For the record, here is the source of those points. I was addressing Chris Ferrara and other anti-sedevacantists.: http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtop ... 7113#17113

Crusader wrote:
There is more to being a Catholic than a valid Latin Mass. The Catholic faith is a seamless garment therefore to reject any one part of Catholic teaching is to reject the entire garment. This is why I believe the position of the SSPX to be as dangerous as the new church. They accept nearly the entire series of Catholic teachings yet they reject the authority of the pope. What a mess. What kind of a church do these SSPX principles make? How could there ever be restoration? Let us imagine for a moment that a solution is found to our crisis and a true and valid pope once again rules from Rome. He would rule over a church that felt free to pick and choose which of his commands fit into their view of tradition.


Do you really think that their position is as dangerous as the New Church? Come on, please. Nor is it factual to say of the SSPX that “reject the authority of the pope.” They reject the authority of the pope to impose error or evil. So do I. So do you, I presume.

As for what will happen when there is a restoration, doubtless some SSPX types will still think they can pick and choose, so to speak, but I think the vast majority will happily forget their “emergency situation ecclesiology” and return to a sound view. Especially when you consider that 95% of them don’t have any of their own ideas about the solution to the crisis anyway – they are merely following their superiors in adhering to the sedeplenist position, so they will cheerfully adhere to the new position of adhering fully to a true pope when one appears.

And in any case, I am prett sure that at least some sedevacantists won’t accept a true pope when he appears either, and if you are not convinced then please consider that some sedevacantists have already quite spectacularly disappeared into schism by electing their own popelettes.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:10 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 8:18 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Brookfield,Wis. --Naples, Fla
New post 
Dear Pia,

Anytime you can post something by Fr. Oswald Baker please do so. I want you to know that we were not lucky enough to be able to acquire his bulletins except by way of Fr. Francis Fenton, who published some of them in his ATHANASIAN. Not everyone has the entire fifteen-year Fenton collection, in which choice articles were written by himself, Fr. Baker, and John Weiskittel, the latter apparently now in retirement. None of the Athanasian was interneted, to the great loss of present-day readers.

So thank you. Stay with us now....

Marilyn


Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:05 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Dear Crusader,

Absolutely! In fact it is more dangerous than the Conciliar Church becuase it lulls souls into a false sense of Catholicism.

Pia


Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Gratias,

Father Baker's sermons/writings were indeed worth reading. I am in the process of compiling them into a book. Thank you for letting me stay and please excuse my typing errors - finger problems unfortunately.

Pia


Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:29 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Pia wrote:
Robert,

I remember well Rama Coomaraswamy and who can deny that what he writes is true. Thank you for bringing it to mind again.

You state "The SSPX position cannot be considered the same as the Indult." If you mean by this that the Indultists are happy to seek permission of the Ordinary to offer the 1962 Mass whilst the SSPX are not then - yes - they have different positions. However I am unsure of your meaning when you say "the error of saying you recognise (my italics) Benedict but grant him no real (again my italics) allegiance". What can this possibly mean? To recognise Benedict could mean that he is somebody previously known, or it could mean to admit him as somebody of a particular status or having validity, or it could mean that they show their appreciation of him - to which meaning are we placing the recognition of Benedict by the SSPX? What is 'real' allegiance? Do the SSPX show 'fake' allegiance? I do not think so.

Let us recall the words of Archbishop Lefebvre:

"The Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new liturgy, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive. This Conciliar Church therefore is not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or laity adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church."

Benedict has been elected by this Satanic institution as its leader. A true Catholic can no more offer allegiance to him than to the Archbishop of Canterbury. To acclaim him as the 'Holy Father' is beyond a true Catholic's comprehension.

We cannot say that because the Church, in its usual manner, has not publicly declared the Conciliar Church to be schismatic that we must therefore not 'judge' (in the external sense) those who adhere to it or recognise it in any shape or form. This is a ridiculous notion. If you believe that what purports to be the Catholic Church is no longer the Catholic Church and that the head of that Church is not the pope then you must surely believe that the Church will in the future condemn it as such and as such we should show no allegiance to it or to its head. It is inconceivable that a valid pope would ever sanction birth control or women priests. As Catholics we know that it is impossible and we have nothing to do with those who advocate such un-Catholic practices. Millions of Catholics have lost the Faith in the sense that they were robbed of it and it is difficult to see how those responsible can be exonerated.

A priest is not only capable but is obliged to make up his mind about whether Benedict and his predecessors are false popes. A priest has ample knowledge of the conditions and qualifications required to make an authentic pope and he must make a decision because he and his people need to know with clarity and certainty which religion has his allegiance - Catholicism or the new Conciliar Church and Benedict XVI.

No bishop or priest should be acknowledging Benedict XVI as the head of the Catholic Church. No bishop or priest should be asking Benedict XVI to admit that the Tridentine rite of Mass is of equal status as the Novus Ordo - the Tridentine rite of Mass as promulgated by Pope Pius V is the ONLY Mass of the One, Holy and Apostolic (Catholic) Church of God.

I agree that there is a difficulty with the analogy of 'England'. And you are undoubtedly right that these are Extraordinary times.

Pia


Dear Pia,

I included the quote from Rama Coomaraswamy because he explicitly mentioned the indult as being "part of the problem". The indult explicitly accepts V2 and all it's errors including the NOM...when you accept the indult, you are accepting these things...explicitly. He also mentions that the problem is that the laity is not well educated and by and large do not know their Faith.

Pia wrote:
If you mean by this that the Indultists are happy to seek permission of the Ordinary to offer the 1962 Mass whilst the SSPX are not then - yes - they have different positions.


No, that is not what I mean. The "indultists" HAVE PERMISSION to use the 1962 missal. The SSPX do not. The SSPX do not appear to have permission from the NO establishment to do anything...let alone use the 1962 missal.

Pia wrote:
However I am unsure of your meaning when you say "the error of saying you recognise (my italics) Benedict but grant him no real (again my italics) allegiance". What can this possibly mean?


It means that you say you recognize Benedict as Pope but you do not submit to his authority in the least bit...in other words, you do not recognize his authority...because you can't without abandoning your position...the principles of your resistance. I have already said that SSPX has no clear theological position...and this is a huge problem...but they do have some clear principles of resistance...that being the rejection of V2 and the NOM. The indult crowd do not have these principles...they accept the NOM and V2 and they are operating under an indult...it will be taken away at some point. I know there are some who claim some "right" to the Indult...but that is absurd...an indult is just that, an indult.

Pia wrote:
To recognise Benedict could mean that he is somebody previously known, or it could mean to admit him as somebody of a particular status or having validity, or it could mean that they show their appreciation of him - to which meaning are we placing the recognition of Benedict by the SSPX?


It means they won't explicitly deny that Benedict is the Pope...if you press a great deal of those who attend SSPX Masses, I'll bet you will find many who can't really tell you what the status of Benedict actually is...they don't want to have an opinion on the subject. They feel much more comfortable rejecting their local NO "Bishop" where the jurisdiction for their Masses should come. Their Priests operate under supplied jurisdiction just like every traditionalist Priest does. They may not want to admit this or understand the implications of it but it is true nonetheless.

Pia wrote:
What is 'real' allegiance? Do the SSPX show 'fake' allegiance? I do not think so.


They either show allegience to Benedict or they do not. I maintain they do not.

They either submit to Benedict's authority or they do not. I maintain they do not.

Does the SSPX have a confused theologial position? Yes.

In the long run (and please don't ask me what that means :) ), is this confused position dangerous? I maintain it is dangerous because generations of traditional Catholics are learning to not trust the Church and are developing a false notion of the Church. Remember also, that most SV chapel goers don't understand the issues either and are developing their own views on the nature of the Church. I believe this is the point that Rama Coomaraswamy made in the quote I provided...the laity needs to be educated.

I do understand your position, Pia. We actually agree with the exception that I do not think that everyone has thought about the issues like you have or had the same Priestly influences that you had...you have to cut them a little slack because they are not educated on these matters...and you must hold their feet to the fire to become educated.


Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:49 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
Dear Crusader,

Absolutely! In fact it is more dangerous than the Conciliar Church becuase it lulls souls into a false sense of Catholicism.

Pia


Dear Pia,

Do you really think this? Or did you not really think about it?

The Conciliar religion is an entirely new religion, as Archbishop Lefebvre insisted and his followers maintain. For example: http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/post- ... ligion.htm

So, as a new religion, I presume that you agree that the V2 religion is essentially deadly.

Now, the SSPX position, which is to reject this new religion whilst declining to form the judgement that all of the known members of the hierarchy of the Church have disappeared into heresy and/or schism, is more dangerous than a new religion? And this because it "it lulls souls into a false sense of Catholicism"?

You could only mean that the SSPX position is also a new religion, but less obvious than the V2 religion. That is, that the SSPX position is a non-Catholic one, and only differs from the Conciliar religion in being better disguised. And if that is what you mean, then you are required to substantiate your charge or withdraw it. This is not a question of charity, but of justice. If you want to make unjust charges against others, you may find any number of "traditional Catholic" forums which will accomodate your desires. This isn't one of them.

I await your reply.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:07 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Robert,

Thank you for your reply and I thank you for the charity with which you offer criticism.

Pia


Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:47 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:07 am
Posts: 32
Location: Spokane WA.
New post 
John Lane wrote:
Do you really think that their position is as dangerous as the New Church? Come on, please.


The SSPX is dangerous because it conceals its error beneath the mask of virtue. The New Church changed the entire look and feel of their Church which in a practical way makes the error of that church more easily discernable. However the SSPX has all the outer trappings of the pre-Vatican II Church which in a practical way makes their error more difficult to discern. Their conservative appearance helps to give their pope sifting theory the allusion of credibility.

I think we are in agreement that the SSPX theory contains error but you seem to think their error is not that big of a deal. I must disagree with you on this point. In my opinion the errors of the SSPX are far more dangerous than is generally perceived.

Why do I believe the SSPX pope sifting theory to be so dangerous?

Pope sifting is not an insignificant error. It goes to the heart of what it means to be catholic. If the authority of one pope can be ignored why not the authority of another? It opens the door to the questioning of the authority of all popes. If one Encyclical can be ignored than it opens the door to the sifting of all Encyclicals. It opens the door to a pick and choose cafeteria style Catholicism.

Quote:
First Vatican Council Session 4 : 18 July 1870
Dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ
Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record.

Chapter 3, On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd.
4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6


I submit that anyone who engages in pope sifting is at best endangering his faith and salvation. It is true charity to inform my fellow Catholic of the danger to which such a position may place him.

John Lane wrote:
Nor is it factual to say of the SSPX that [they] “reject the authority of the pope.” They reject the authority of the pope to impose error or evil. So do I. So do you, I presume.

They do in fact profess to believe in the authority of the pope but their assertion is a fraud because they have redefined what the authority of the pope is under the guise of “true obedience”. Their definition of the pope’s authority and “true obedience” is not the definition of Vatican I.


Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:07 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Mr Lane,

I am sorry that you have such anger, however:

Pius XI stresses the ‘priesthood of the laity’ (Miserentissimus Redemptor). In the Sacrifice of the Mass the laity unite themselves with the priest, with their bishop, with the bishops of the whole world and with the pope - “The faithful must concur in the oblation in the same manner as the priest” – “to unite with the priest during Mass” (Pius XI).

At Mass – it was, and is, except for a very rare indult, forbidden for the priest to be alone! ‘Vae soli! Woe to the priest without an altar boy!’ The Mass is of one soul. Christ, the pope, the bishop, the priests, the faithful, the angels, and the saints….are but one pulsating body – together they offer Christ – together they offer themselves with Him.

“Of all the Christians present he (the server) is the foremost – the nearest to Christ – because he is the most closely united with the priest, and the most closely uniting, since he is the connecting link between the priest and faithful – TO OFFER WITH THE PRIEST, IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

The Mass being offered by you and me and the entire Mystical Body of Christ is united not only with the first Mass ever offered, that of the Cenacle, but with those said in the dark of the catacombs on the still warm bodies of the latest martyrs and with those magnificient martyrs of later years and with those said by the Pope or Bishop with 20, 30 or 40 co-consecrating priests. That there may be one fold under one shepherd – united with our Holy Father the Pope - and all the popes be he Pius IX, Pius X or Pius XII – whether he be Leo XIII or Benedict XV - the Pope is the one Shepherd. He is Christ. You are united with the priest, with the bishop. With the Pope (named by the priest) and with Christ, who together “rule the Holy Church of God”. We are one in this link, this living chain – “Christ, the Pope, the bishop, and we ourselves: priests and faithful and God Who holds the two ends of the chain.”

You would have it that you are not sharing in the priest’s error indeed you are.

“The Society of Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ. The priests of the SSPX pray for the intentions of the Holy Father and of the local Ordinary at every Mass they celebrate” (SSPX web page)

When you assist at the Mass of a priest of the SSPX you are united with him and with Benedict XVI and the local Ordinary.

You have already stated that Father Baker was a saintly priest. I have already written what Father Baker stated and wrote concerning allegiance to the popes of Vatican II -that it is gravely sinful to show allegiance to them.

If a priest, validly ordained, asked me to assist at his Mass, Tridentine Mass with the correct intention and matter, but I knew he was living in an openly [sinful] relationship, would I do it ?– No. Would it be sinful for me to knowingly do so? – I would argue Yes.

The position of the SSPX priest is plainly stated, it is in the external forum. If you knowingly assist at the Mass of a priest who, according to a (in your own words) ‘saintly priest’, commits a grave sin it is a serious matter indeed.

The position of the SSPX is, in my view, more dangerous than the Conciliar Church in as much and in so far as it seduces souls who, knowing full well that the Conciliar Church is not Catholic, are led to believe that the SSPX way is – it is not.

Pia


Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:39 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Crusader wrote:
The SSPX is dangerous because it conceals its error beneath the mask of virtue. The New Church changed the entire look and feel of their Church which in a practical way makes the error of that church more easily discernable. However the SSPX has all the outer trappings of the pre-Vatican II Church which in a practical way makes their error more difficult to discern. Their conservative appearance helps to give their pope sifting theory the allusion of credibility.

I think we are in agreement that the SSPX theory contains error but you seem to think their error is not that big of a deal. I must disagree with you on this point. In my opinion the errors of the SSPX are far more dangerous than is generally perceived.


Dear Crusader,

With respect to whether something is a "big deal" or not, please be assured that I categorise errors based upon what I believe to be their true theological weight, insofar as I can discover it by reading the relevant books. I presume that you think that justice is a “big deal,” and I am saying that your position is unjust towards good priests. Let’s try and work out which of us is right, rather than rely upon rhetorical tricks, shall we?

If this is to be a debate on any point at all, both must answer the arguments presented by the other party. Since you set yourself up as the judge of those good priests who have failed to agree with your own theory, you might condescend to answer their actual arguments. Unlike you, my friend, they have studied philosophy and theology, and (for example) I expect most of them know the difference between "allusion" and "illusion.”

On the question of resisting a pope, and whether it is ever licit, you omitted to cite any authority. Here is the famous theologian Vittoria, quoted by Da Silveira in his book on the Five Opinions re. the heretical pope thesis (republished by Fr. Vaillancourt as “Can The Pope Go Bad?”).

Vittoria wrote:
Cajetan, in the same work in which he defends the superiority of the Pope over the Council, says in Chap. XXVII: "Then one must resist to his face a Pope who publicly destroys the Church, for example not wishing to confer ecclesiastical benefices except for money or in exchange for services; and one must deny, with all obedience and respect, the possession of such benefices to those who have bought them.”

And Sylvester (Prierias), at the word Papa, 4, asks: “What must one do when the Pope, by his evil customs, destroys the Church?” And in 15: “What must one do if the Pope wishes, without cause, to abrogate positive law?” To this, he responds: “He would certainly sin; one should not permit him to carry on like this, nor should one obey him in that which is evil; but one should resist him with a courteous rebuke”.

Therefore, if he wished to hand over all the treasure of the Church or the patrimony of Saint Peter to his family, if he wished to destroy the Church, or other similar things, one should not permit him to act in this way, rather one would be obliged to resist him. The reason for this is that he does not have power to destroy; therefore, it being clear that he does, it is licit to resist him.

From all of this it follows that, if the Pope, by his orders and his acts, destroys the Church, one can resist him and impede the execution of his commands (...).

A second proof of the thesis: According to natural law, it is licit to repel violence with violence. Now, with such orders and dispensations, the Pope does violence, because he acts against the law, as was proven above. Then, it is licit to resist him. As Cajetan observes, we do not affirm all this in the sense that someone has the right to be judge of the Pope or authority over him, but rather in the sense that it is licit to defend oneself. Anyone, indeed, has the right to resist an unjust act, to try to impede it and to defend himself.”


So as you can see, this is not an SSPX theory – it is an aspect of traditional theology which the Archbishop and everybody else until the sede vacante thesis was developed applied to the present circumstances in order to provide a basis for rejecting the evil reforms of Vatican II. And who is to say he was wrong? Could it really be that you pass judgement on every single traditional Catholic who resisted V2 until he became convinced of the vacancy of the Holy See? And could it be that you do this without ever addressing their arguments?


Crusader wrote:
They do in fact profess to believe in the authority of the pope but their assertion is a fraud because they have redefined what the authority of the pope is under the guise of “true obedience”. Their definition of the pope’s authority and “true obedience” is not the definition of Vatican I.


Crusader, you evidently have no idea what the Vatican I definition means, if you think it conflicts with the doctrine of Vittoria (and numerous others) on legitimate resistance to authority. Please do not speak about “true charity” to others until you are prepared to take justice seriously. Justice is that virtue which renders to others what is their due. The SSPX clergy are due, at the very least, that we understand their actual mind, and that we spend some real effort in assessing it in the light of sound authorities. Anything less is not just, let alone Catholic, and if anybody wishes to stoop to it, they can do so on other forums, where anything goes.

But further, and this argument might appeal where mere justice fails to motivate, you will never convince a man unless you address the reasons in his mind for his position, and this is the failure of most “sedevacantist” apologetics. The same is true in the other direction. I find myself completely unmoved by all of the anti-sedevacantist polemics largely because even if Bellarmine had never written a word about the pope-heretic thesis, I would still know that the Catholic Church is a visible unity of (among other things) Faith. Therefore the Conciliar sect cannot be the Church. Likewise we will never make a dent in the SSPX position until we can show that despite the legitimacy of “resisting a pope” (within limits), the position still conflicts with sound doctrine. What I am saying is that your argument won’t have any effect except to embitter relations with fellow Catholics. Which hardly seems to be a worthwhile endeavour, I hope you will agree.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:55 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
Mr Lane,

I am sorry that you have such anger,


Dear Pia,

Please be assured you are in my prayers.

We have already answered these arguments. One may, according to the theologians, assist at the Mass of a priest living in open concubinage, for example. Which sinks your own theory. And which is why Fr. Baker publicly provided the advice I have already posted.

Let's move on in all peace and charity, shall we?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:59 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
John,

Thank you.

Pia


Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:56 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post 
John, in answering Pia you said,

Quote:
Dear Pia,

The Conciliar religion is an entirely new religion, as Archbishop Lefebvre insisted and his followers maintain.


Knowing this I am wondering why Bp Fellay and some other SSPX people continually try to get reconciled with NewRome or get approval from Fr Ratzunger and company It would seem that they should be pleading with Newrome to come back and get reconciled with the Traditional Church and SSPX for starters.


Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:55 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
csibf wrote:
John, in answering Pia you said,

Quote:
Dear Pia,

The Conciliar religion is an entirely new religion, as Archbishop Lefebvre insisted and his followers maintain.


Knowing this I am wondering why Bp Fellay and some other SSPX people continually try to get reconciled with NewRome or get approval from Fr Ratzunger and company It would seem that they should be pleading with Newrome to come back and get reconciled with the Traditional Church and SSPX for starters.


Well, if you ask Bishop Fellay he will say that he is not trying "to get reconciled with NewRome or get approval from Fr Ratzinger and company," but rather he is "pleading with Newrome to come back and get reconciled with the Traditional Church and SSPX for starters."

So I guess you agree with him. :)

And I suspect you think he is wasting his time, and I agree with you on that, too. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:20 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
John,

Not wishing to cause any more angst may I ask if you are sure on the date of the tract you published, i.e. as coming from Father Baker's bulletin of October 1983?

To my recollection I never heard Father Baker state this in a sermon. (His bulletins were usually copies of the sermon he had given the previous Sunday) I have looked through all his sermons for the year 1983 and whilst there are several which go into the subject of Archbishop Lefebvre and what, in Father Baker's view, was an untenable position, there is not one that in any way resembles what you have posted. Could you please check this and let me know whthe date of the actual parish bulletin concerned?

May I also ask whether Father Baker knew you had posted this 'article'?

Pia


Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:54 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
John,

Not wishing to cause any more angst may I ask if you are sure on the date of the tract you published, i.e. as coming from Father Baker's bulletin of October 1983?

To my recollection I never heard Father Baker state this in a sermon. (His bulletins were usually copies of the sermon he had given the previous Sunday) I have looked through all his sermons for the year 1983 and whilst there are several which go into the subject of Archbishop Lefebvre and what, in Father Baker's view, was an untenable position, there is not one that in any way resembles what you have posted. Could you please check this and let me know whthe date of the actual parish bulletin concerned?

May I also ask whether Father Baker knew you had posted this 'article'?

Pia


Dear Pia,

It was from private letter which he subsequently published in his bulletin. John Daly provided the text and the date to me.

I spoke to John on the telephone a few days ago and asked him if he knew anything about the doubts you say that Fr. Baker entertained regarding Archbishop Lefebvre's orders, and he confirmed that Fr. Baker did indeed go through such a stage, and for that reason did not recommend that his parishioners assist at Masses offered by SSPX priests. Later he evidently overcame these doubts, because he was endeavouring to have Fr. (now Bp.) Sanborn take over his parish, and Fr. Sanborn was a Lefebvre ordinand, as you know.

In any case, I think you will agree that Fr. Baker was not "dogmatically anti-una cum" and that is the point I have made.

I don't know if he knew that I had re-published his text, nor do I think it matters. He had published it and not retracted it, and I still believe it represents his mature thought on the question.

I hope that this helps.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
John,

Please could you supply the exact date? As stated I have Father Baker's bulletin's from 1957 onwards and I cannot find this text in 1983. Also I have no recollection at all of Father Baker stating this concerning assistance at an SSPX Mass.

As far as I am aware Father Baker never endeavoured to have (Fr) Bishop Sanborn take over his parish. I cannot say he overcame his doubts concerning Archbishop Lefebvre's ordination. He knew of the controversy and that there were opinions on both sides. By the end of his life I think he was just so grateful that he was not one of the priests who would have to worry about his 'credentials'. Father Baker never had his jurisdiction revoked by the Conciliar Church but I dare say it would not have bothered him if it had been. I know he was offered the bishop's mitre by De Castro Meyer.

I do not know what you mean by "Father Baker was not 'dogmatically anti-una-cum'". If you mean that Father Baker did not believe that it was mortally sinful to place the name of the Vatican II popes in the Canon of the Mass then I would have to say that he did believe it to be so and is published as saying so well after 1983. In fact until the day he died.

All this aside please provide me with the exact date as none of the bulletins for October 1983 that I have have this tract in them. The bulletins that I have are:-

2/10/1983 Animal Rights
9/10/1983 Salvation Outside the Church
16/10/1983 Verdict on Vatican II
23/10/1983 Papal Infallibility and Power
30/10/1983 Christ before Pilate

No mention of it being permissable to attend an SSPX Mass in any of them.

I have also asked other parishoners of Father Baker's whether he ever stated this and none of them can recall him doing so. One parishioner did state that when they asked Father Baker if it was permissable for him to attend the SSPX Mass all Father Baker would say was "Who am I to say?". I do know of a few who were told categorically that it was not. As he used to say "You do not give strong meat to the mouths of babes". There is a wealth of meaning in that is there not.

Pia


Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:39 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dear Pia,

Pia wrote:
Please could you supply the exact date?


I have highlighted this for John Daly and will await his confirmation.


Pia wrote:
I do not know what you mean by "Father Baker was not 'dogmatically anti-una-cum'". If you mean that Father Baker did not believe that it was mortally sinful to place the name of the Vatican II popes in the Canon of the Mass then I would have to say that he did believe it to be so and is published as saying so well after 1983. In fact until the day he died.


No, I did not mean that he considered it a sin to put a fake pope's name in the Canon. Everybody agrees with that proposition, including I presume the SSPX.

We are discussing something quite distinct, which is in the circumstance that a priest disagrees with me about the status of (for example) Benedict XVI, may I still assist at his Mass? I have yet to see a shred of evidence that Fr. Baker held a view on this which differed with what I hold. The potential invalidity of Archbishop Lefebvre's orders are an entirely unrelated issue. I hope that you see that much.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:54 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.