The Cardboard Pope; by Fr. Cekada

[Basilios]

Greg...the True Mass...isnt connected to who is or isnt Pope...even if the clergy erroniusly name the wrong name during the mass...Fr Cekada is wrong. Go to Mass....or Since your aquainted with Russians go to the Ukrainian Liturgy or Byzantine. Receive Christ above all things....all controversys...all politics. That is simple truth.

You know I love you Voxx but this is straight from the Protestant text book. I'm surprised to see you saying it.

[Greg]

Greg,
I assist at an SSPX chapel.  "S.V.ism" is a theological conclusion that appears to best explain how the Pope and bishops can teach erroneous doctrine, promulgate harmful, doubtful and even invalid sacraments, and discipline.  It doesn't mean one only is allowed to attend chapels run by priests that have reached the same conclusion.  I agree that given the circumstances of the priest that you described, I would not counsel anyone to attend his Mass.

If you attend a SV chapel it can mean that.  In my case it would have meant that.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Greg...the True Mass...isnt connected to who is or isnt Pope...even if the clergy erroniusly name the wrong name during the mass...Fr Cekada is wrong. Go to Mass....or Since your aquainted with Russians go to the Ukrainian Liturgy or Byzantine. Receive Christ above all things....all controversys...all politics. That is simple truth.

You know I love you Voxx but this is straight from the Protestant text book. I'm surprised to see you saying it.

If you loved me you wouldn't make such a horrible accusation without being more clear on the how you figure it to be true... I reread my post and I can't find anything Protestant about it..

[Basilios]

Greg...the True Mass...isnt connected to who is or isnt Pope...even if the clergy erroniusly name the wrong name during the mass...Fr Cekada is wrong. Go to Mass....or Since your aquainted with Russians go to the Ukrainian Liturgy or Byzantine. Receive Christ above all things....all controversys...all politics. That is simple truth.

You know I love you Voxx but this is straight from the Protestant text book. I'm surprised to see you saying it.

If you loved me you wouldn't make such a horrible accusation without being more clear on the how you figure it to be true... I reread my post and I can't find anything Protestant about it..

Ok.

True Mass...isnt connected to who is or isnt Pope

So says Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox. If all that mattered were the Mass without respect to the Pope, many Protestants and Schismatics would be okay.

Receive Christ above all things....all controversys...all politics

A very Protestant and liberal-Catholic / neo-Catholic line of thought. Protestants shy away from what they call the "politics" of theological controversy, and say that you are a Christian to receive Christ into your heart.
Liberal Catholics do not believe in EENS so to them "receiving" Christ whether in Holy Communion (which they believe is valid everywhere) or being slain in the spirit is all that matters.
Neo-Catholics claim that it doesn't matter what the liturgy is like as long as you can receive Holy Communion.

If the Pope didn't matter we'd have a lot less trouble in the Church today and in dealing with other "christians".

There you go.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Ok fair enough ...you could apply those positions as a protestants...but all in context my good man..

First you know damn well Im no protty...never have been mever will be so any comment I make that you assert could be a protestant position is accidental...and of course not my intention.

When I say it matters not WHO the Pope is...I wasnt implying it doesnt matter whether there IS a Pope...that would be protty...what Im saying is just like in the past when we had numerous Papal claimants the knowledge of the IDENTITY doesnt matter..
Listen what did the poor and peasents do back before technology and broad literacy? There was Im sure mant masses said that did not properly name the Pope because of a lack of current info.

Also the context of the crisis matters...we have a man named supposedly infallably who could not possibly be a venerable saint...this is to what Greg refers...and I agree...it makes it difficult to accept Francis as Pope

"Recieve Christ above all else" is in no way an exclusive to protty statement...especially the context being about the Blessed Sacrament...my understanding is that Anglicans dont have Christ in their communion so the comparison is moot.

As far as politics and controversys...these have no place of consideration for a good Catholic father like Greg who simply wants to practice his faith with his family. Fr Cekada injects polotics and controversys into the Mass...as Greg pointed out that was very disconcerting to him especially when the priest involved had some questionable morals.

So context basillios...context...dont be a knee "jerk".

[Roland Deschain2]

To answer your question in a few words, RD2:

Faced with the apparent intra-ecclesiastical contradictions presented by this crisis, the sedeplenist pits the magisterium against itself, as though Tradition can be subject to the magisterial authority of the pope, and chooses to follow this part rather than that part in the name of adherence to the ultimate principle and suprema lex of sedeplenism: obedience to the putative pope; the sedevacantist, by contrast, pits the man who claims to be the pope against the magisterium, realizing that the pope is subject to tradition, and chooses to follow the entire magisterium rather than the proclamations of a man claiming to be pope, who places himself above the Traditions that only on account of the submission to which can one be counted on as being the Head of the Church.

Thank you.

[Michael Wilson]

Greg,
I assist at an SSPX chapel.  "S.V.ism" is a theological conclusion that appears to best explain how the Pope and bishops can teach erroneous doctrine, promulgate harmful, doubtful and even invalid sacraments, and discipline.  It doesn't mean one only is allowed to attend chapels run by priests that have reached the same conclusion.  I agree that given the circumstances of the priest that you described, I would not counsel anyone to attend his Mass.

If you attend a SV chapel it can mean that.  In my case it would have meant that.

Its true, some S.V.s Arrogate to themselves an authority that they don't have, by erecting their opinions into infallible dogmas.   That in and of itself should send a warning sign that all is not well with them.

[Greg]

As far as I can tell both of the SV chapels in the UK.  One near to me and one 3 hours drive away both "Arrogate to themselves an authority that they don't have, by erecting their opinions into infallible dogmas".

Neither do it very aggressively, but if you make it clear that you will attend no SV masses then, over time, they make it clear that is not acceptable to them.  One must buy into the principle wholesale as far as they are concerned.

This is understandable, from their point of view, since they are dying out and lack support.  They even admitted as much to me.  But, like I said above, before I would commit to such an extreme position, however theologically consistent and comfortable it is, I would want them to be at least working miracles like walking on water and curing blindness, if not raising the dead to life.

And homosexual videos are right out.  Even newchurch would put the kibosh on that; given all the lawsuits and stuff.

So SVism is not really an option for me in the UK.  If Francis went full apostate and the SSPX declared an SV position I'd certainly go with that because they are credible and available.

[Sbyvl36]

As far as I can tell both of the SV chapels in the UK.  One near to me and one 3 hours drive away both "Arrogate to themselves an authority that they don't have, by erecting their opinions into infallible dogmas".

Neither do it very aggressively, but if you make it clear that you will attend no SV masses then, over time, they make it clear that is not acceptable to them.  One must buy into the principle wholesale as far as they are concerned.

This is understandable, from their point of view, since they are dying out and lack support.  They even admitted as much to me.  But, like I said above, before I would commit to such an extreme position, however theologically consistent and comfortable it is, I would want them to be at least working miracles like walking on water and curing blindness, if not raising the dead to life.

And homosexual videos are right out.  Even newchurch would put the kibosh on that; given all the lawsuits and stuff.

So SVism is not really an option for me in the UK.  If Francis went full apostate and the SSPX declared an SV position I'd certainly go with that because they are credible and available.

What makes the SSPX the authority to do this?  If you reject SVism on the belief that we do not have a right to judge whether or not the See is vacant (I have seen you make this argument before), then what gives the SSPX the right to make this declaration?

[Greg]

I don't reject it on that basis.

I reject it on the basis that it is normally held as a 'dogma' or at least 'an opinion with consequences', vis-a-vis going to other Traditional Latin Masses.

Since the SV's cannot provide masses and the sacraments except in two remote mass centres in the whole of the UK, one practically innacessible and the other a 10x10 foot room in a back garden this is just not a tenable of practical position to hold.  My family alone simply does not fit inside their chapel.  That is how bizarre we are talking here.

If you ask your kids to accept such a bizarre and freakish proposition then you can pretty much guarantee they will lapse as they mature and see the ludicrous nature of what that held opinions implies and translates to in the real world.  Which is probably why SVism is dying out in the UK, which it most certainly is.

In short, to adopt a bizarre and freakish position I would want clearly divine instructions, miracles, etc.  The apostles got miracles and the power to work miracles to convince others and their position was no less credible than dogmatic sedevacantism.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

I don't reject it on that basis.

I reject it on the basis that it is normally held as a 'dogma' or at least 'an opinion with consequences', vis-a-vis going to other Traditional Latin Masses.

Since the SV's cannot provide masses and the sacraments except in two remote mass centres in the whole of the UK, one practically innacessible and the other a 10x10 foot room in a back garden this is just not a tenable of practical position to hold.  My family alone simply does not fit inside their chapel.  That is how bizarre we are talking here.

If you ask your kids to accept such a bizarre and freakish proposition then you can pretty much guarantee they will lapse as they mature and see the ludicrous nature of what that held opinions implies and translates to in the real world.  Which is probably why SVism is dying out in the UK, which it most certainly is.

In short, to adopt a bizarre and freakish position I would want clearly divine instructions, miracles, etc.  The apostles got miracles and the power to work miracles to convince others and their position was no less credible than dogmatic sedevacantism.

Thats why I say it is perfectly permissable to go to any Trad Mass you want whether you hold the SV opinion or not....its just an opinion...one you may freely keep to yourself if the situation makes it prudent. Greg Ive never known you to be so reactionary...just take your family to Mass for Christs Sake! Go to the biggest most well attended TLM you can find...the sv opinion changes nothing vis vis the sacraments...Fr Cedaka and his una voca position is just damn wrong.

[Godfrey of Bouillon]

As far as I can tell both of the SV chapels in the UK.  One near to me and one 3 hours drive away both "Arrogate to themselves an authority that they don't have, by erecting their opinions into infallible dogmas".



  If Francis went full apostate and the SSPX declared an SV position I'd certainly go with that because they are credible and available.

Econe locuta est?

[Michael Wilson]

I agree Greg; the S.V. Chapels in G.B. Are not an option.

[Greg]

As far as I can tell both of the SV chapels in the UK.  One near to me and one 3 hours drive away both "Arrogate to themselves an authority that they don't have, by erecting their opinions into infallible dogmas".



  If Francis went full apostate and the SSPX declared an SV position I'd certainly go with that because they are credible and available.

Econe locuta est?

Not really.

More a case of "needs must when the devil drives".

There is a paradox already as far as I am concerned as a result of the canonisations.

The new mass is totally out since it is abundently clear that the priests and laity believe a complete different faith.

That leaves you with essentially three options for Trad mass other than SVism.

FSSP or Latin Mass Society.  Problem with this camp is that they will now bring up Saints John Paul II and John XXIII'd in sermons.  This completely undermines the Traditionalist position, not to mention old fashioned rational common sense.  Every appeal I have had to return to their masses has been based on PURE emotion not a rational explanation of how those Canonisations can be real.

The one priest I know in that camp that tries to explain it comes up with a duel Pope theory which is so convoluted that Jayne would need to smoke crack and snort cocaine to get her head around it while the rest of us would need Mr. Spock's brain transplanted by Dr. Mc Coy.

The SSPX's defense is incredibly weak, but essentially they just ignore the canonisations and play the three monkeys game.  They appear to be my best option for now but long term this will bite them in the ass.  There is simply no way to argue against, not one but, TWO canonised Pope saints in the 50 year history of New "Catholicism".  The papal instigator of it and the greatest actor in terms of its application.

I will support any camp that can explain this rationally, act accordingly, follow a faith that makes historical and non-contradictory sense and aren't tempted to bugger my children.  If they can do all that without an overly frequent use of Latin idioms, so much the better.

[Kaesekopf]

As far as I can tell both of the SV chapels in the UK.  One near to me and one 3 hours drive away both "Arrogate to themselves an authority that they don't have, by erecting their opinions into infallible dogmas".



  If Francis went full apostate and the SSPX declared an SV position I'd certainly go with that because they are credible and available.

Econe locuta est?

You're back?  I thought you had left!