It is currently Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:06 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
 For Sacerdos: Sedes Assisting at SSPX Non-una-cum Masses? 
Author Message

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:06 am
Posts: 63
New post For Sacerdos: Sedes Assisting at SSPX Non-una-cum Masses?
Sacerdos

Hail!

I've a question which I would like asked of Fr. Cekada please.

If a validly ordained SSPX priest were to offer a traditional Latin Mass, and NOT mention the name of Benedict XVI in the Canon, would it be permissible for sedevacantists to actively assist at it and receive communion from him?

Because the reasons Fr. Cekada has given so far against assistance at SSPX una-cum masses do not apply, I think his answer would have to be yes.

I would be grateful if you could let us know Fr. Cekada’s answer, and hearing the reasoning behind his answer one way or another.

_________________
JRM


Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:38 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: For Sacerdos: Sedes Assisting at SSPX Non-una-cum Masses
JakeRM wrote:
If a validly ordained SSPX priest were to offer a traditional Latin Mass, and NOT mention the name of Benedict XVI in the Canon, would it be permissible for sedevacantists to actively assist at it and receive communion from him?

Because the reasons Fr. Cekada has given so far against assistance at SSPX una-cum masses do not apply, I think his answer would have to be yes.

I would be grateful if you could let us know Fr. Cekada’s answer, and hearing the reasoning behind his answer one way or another.


How did we go getting a response to this? I think it may assist to bring some clarity to the issues here.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:33 pm
Profile E-mail
New post 
Aaaaaahhhhh

If a validly ordained SSPX offers mass and does NOT mention B16 in the Canon, how the heck will Fr. Cekada know?


Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:43 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
eliz carroll wrote:
If a validly ordained SSPX offers mass and does NOT mention B16 in the Canon, how the heck will Fr. Cekada know?


Don't worry about that, it happens, and sometimes we know. It may happen many times when we don't know, too, but those occasions are not relevant. Bishop Sanborn mentions cases such as this in his article, so Bishop Sanborn knows that sometimes this situation occurs and those assisting can be aware of it.

Sacerdos, are you still with us, or did this question give you cause to drop the whole subject?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:32 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rock Island, Illinois, USA
New post 
If we have established that there are no valid objections against the SSPX una cum Masses, the issue of SSPX non una cum is mooted. It has been mined enough, and I think it unlikely we'll discover any more 'gold'. It will certainly not add to the debate. What proof could be demonstrated that wasn't used in the una cum debate?

However, Sacerdos' thread, Sedes Assisting at a Valid Indult/Motu Mass is the next logical question. This topic is surely rich for discussion.

Request that thread be unlocked.


Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:31 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:06 am
Posts: 63
New post 
Chris Browne wrote:
If we have established that there are no valid objections against the SSPX una cum Masses, the issue of SSPX non una cum is mooted.


Good point. I agree. But I'm not taking a poll here. I'm asking what Fr. Cekada thinks.

Quote:
What proof could be demonstrated that wasn't used in the una cum debate?


Good question. We await the answers to these things.

_________________
JRM


Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:58 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Chris Browne wrote:
If we have established that there are no valid objections against the SSPX una cum Masses, the issue of SSPX non una cum is mooted. It has been mined enough, and I think it unlikely we'll discover any more 'gold'. It will certainly not add to the debate. What proof could be demonstrated that wasn't used in the una cum debate?


Well, I have yet to post the McHugh and Callan material explaining scandal in detail. When that is posted, all will see that the whole thrust of the anti-una-cum crowd is contrary to the spirit which should animate a Catholic in relation to these things. The "scandal" summoned from the depths of his imagination by Fr. Cekada, dressed in white sheet, and sent out as a spectre to say "Boo!" at the psychological moment, is Pharisaic scandal. It is no reason to deprive oneself of spiritual goods. This is, at bottom, what motivated all of those traditional Catholics who (as I've mentioned repeatedly) failed to conclude that the priest's mention of Paul VI's or JPII's name as pope constituted a sufficient reason to stay home alone.



Chris Browne wrote:
However, Sacerdos' thread, Sedes Assisting at a Valid Indult/Motu Mass is the next logical question. This topic is surely rich for discussion.

Sure, in the appropriate time. None of these questions need cause the slightest concern to traditional Catholics. Once the principles are exposed, the solutions can all be found. But in this case we are awaiting Sacerdos' answer from Fr. Cekada. Let's all hope that we have the greatest amount of common ground possible, and Fr. Cekada's answer to Jake's question will almost certainly add to our common ground.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:31 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.