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.

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

Aaaaaahhhhh

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?

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.

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



Good question. We await the answers to these things.

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.




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.