Rorate Caeli
A thorough comparison of the Traditional Latin Mass and the ordinary Mass

We have been blessed with an exclusive, lengthy, deep delve into what really differentiates the Mass of All Ages and the ever-so-ordinary Mass in use, unfortunately, in all too many parishes -- the Novus Ordo.
The author, Don Pietro Leone, holds degrees in both classics and philosophy. This holy priest has taught philosophy in both America and Europe at the university and seminary level. He is a priest of the Tridentine Rite. He divides his time between pastoral and academic work and has recently completed a book on Catholic marriage from a philosophical and theological standpoint.
Please use the link below to read this fine work. Our most gracious thanks to Father for sharing this exclusively with the Rorate Caeli family..

54 comments:

  1. Anonymous2:30 AM

    Wish someone would put this in pamphlet form. What order does this priest serve in?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous2:46 AM

    For obvious reasons, Father has asked for his order to remain private.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is great stuff. Many thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. homo iniquus4:25 AM

    excellent article, nicely summarises a lot of things. CAn the word version be posted for download?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous8:50 AM

    The conclusion that the NO is Protestant is very disturbing to me.

    What is there that prevents Benedict XVI to act with more determination to make the needed reforms with more deliberate haste? Is it fear of worldwide breakaway movemenst? But we have those now in fact.

    The status quo is very harmful to souls.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:16 AM

    A significant improvement on the writings of Michael Davies.

    At least this author acknoweledges the pernicious nature of the Holy Week reforms of 1955 though he is incorrect to state that Mgr. Montini was part of the Pian Commission, officially at least.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous11:30 AM

    Wow, this is something. Thank you, Rorate Caeli!

    A quick apologetical question for folks here. Ecumenical Council of Trent, Chapter IX, Canon VII says the following:

    "If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema."

    So does this apply to the Novus Ordu Mass? If not, why not? If so, then how can there be any serious criticism or opposition to Novus Ordu in light of this immutable teaching from Trent?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous12:40 PM

    We have no ability, using blogger, to post anything like a Word doc or a PDF, unfortunately.

    Many people have emailed me, and I've emailed them all back with the document.

    You may do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous12:59 PM

    There is not such thing as the 'Tridentine Rite,' there is the Roman Rite in which Mass is celebrated according to two forms, the Ordinary and the Extraordinary forms, so a priest cannot be of the 'Tridentine Rite;' he is a priest of the Roman Rite...full stop. Period. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema."

    So does this apply to the Novus Ordu (sic) Mass? If not, why not?


    I think the criticisms of the reform of the Roman Rite do not amount to an argument that they are incentives to impiety, but that the reformed Roman Rite does not offer sufficient incentives to piety. Many traditionalists, however, do talk like they believe the reformed ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs of the ordinary use of the Roman Rite (and not just the abuses thereof) are incentives to impiety.

    Of course the other proposed explanation of this canon is that it had in mind the Mass of the Roman Rite, and the reformed Roman Rite is, despite its de facto and de jure status, is a new rite and not the Roman Rite at all. Still, it is not easy to see how God could permit His Church to institute rites that are incentives to impiety -- it does not seem God has granted the Church the ability to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous1:35 PM

    "So does this apply to the Novus Ordu Mass? If not, why not? If so, then how can there be any serious criticism or opposition to Novus Ordu in light of this immutable teaching from Trent?"

    Let me preface this with I'm not a theologian, I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and I barely can remember half my basic prayers. That being said:

    I cannot see how this would apply to the Novus Ordo, for how could Pius V have ever envisioned something like the Novus Ordo forcing itself upon the Faithful?

    Now, I ask Jordanes, NC, Carlos or any of the much, much smarter contributors to come clean up my mess!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous1:38 PM

    And now, my apologies to Jordanes. For some reason, no matter which one of the three computers I use during the day that I'm on, the comment box never updates for me until I post something myself. THEN I see the last few that were posted.

    Gotta love blogger!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. Paulitz,

    Thank you for posting this essay.
    I've re-uploaded it to box.net here:
    http://bit.ly/Roman_Rite_OLDnNEW

    Hope it help

    ReplyDelete
  14. CJ & others,

    I have put the document in Word format on my website at http://phaley.faithweb.com and if you scroll down to "Document - Contrasting the Old & New Forms of the Roman Rite" in the left-hand margin and click on the title, it should open up in Word format. There are also links to other documents that may be of interest in that section. By the way it's interesting to note Fr. Cekada's contribution to the document in question. Some may not agree with the opinions expressed by me on the site but, hey, that's me and my opinions for what it's worth.

    Cheers,

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  15. Martin4:55 PM

    I am continuing to read this excellent work and am only half finished reading it, but Father Cekada covers everything that is covered here, so far, in his book "Work of Human Hands".

    Maybe a copy of his book can be sent to every priest?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous6:12 PM

    Anon 12:59,

    Your remarks are gratuitous. There's no point in claiming there is no such thing as the 'Tridentine Rite', knowing the author is saying only that the priest he speaks of offers the old Mass, commonly called Tridentine?

    To create parity between the novus ordo and the ancient Roman rite of the Church, one must do so against the very words of the fabricators who publicly admitted that "the Roman rite as we knew it no longer exists," that "it has been destroyed." Imagine the arrogance of the boast! Cardinal Ratzinger wrote "the old building was taken down and another was built." Imagine a new liturgy is BUILT! Voilá!

    Indeed something literally incredible, unbelievable!

    IMO the problem with the OF/EF declaration are the many lies left uncovered inside that formulation. I am not against Pope Benedict XVI, I am grateful for SP, and I do not deny the validity of the novus ordo. But there exists the ancient Roman rite of the Mass, and there exists the concocted liturgy called the novus ordo. Pray God never the twain shall meet.

    How someone can suggest, even at this late hour, that the invention and imposition of the novus ordo has not fractured the Roman Church beggars the imagination.

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous7:16 PM

    Martin, while Fr. Cekada is incredibly bright, he's also a sedevacantist. Enough said.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous7:27 PM

    Anon. 12.59 is dead wrong:

    There are two Rites of Mass here and S.P. is completely mistaken on this point, as I have argued in detail before.

    We have seen how Rome was wrong in thinking that the ancient Mass was abolished, and acted illegally in De Missali Romano of 1971. In time, we shall see how the two Masses represent completely different Rites.

    The very means of generation of the two is different: one coming from the Holy Ghost through organic growth; the other, concocted in committee by men on the advice of a conventicle of heretics.

    The two differ markedly also in every category of change known to liturgiologists: addition, deletion, substitution, recasting, re-ordering, rubrication, fundamental change not only in musical setting but even in the categories of musical setting (the distinction between sacred and religious music now having been abolished).

    Rome acknowledges that the Ambrosian Rite is a separate Rite of Mass, not merely a local use. But the Ambrosian Rite is closer in content and spirit to the T.L.M. than the T.L.M. is to the N.O.M. How, then, can the T.L.M. and N.O.M. be different 'forms' of one Rite? To hold that, you must claim that the term 'Rite' refers not to content but only to historical affiliation. So you have to re-define terminology itself to sustain the false claim.

    They are two different Rites. Full Stop. End of story.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous7:31 PM

    On Jordanes's explanation:

    I agree with Jordanes here. The author is not saying that the New Mass somehow implies that the previous Rite of Mass was an incentive to impiety.

    Merely to abandon the use of vestments, for example, does not, in itself, amount to an argument that the old vestments were an incitement to impiety. Nowhere does the GIRM of the New Mass say that or lodge that claim.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous7:34 PM

    Mr. Paulitz:

    Enough said my foot. Sedevacantism is not a heresy. Get that straight. We are all sedevacantists after the death of a pope and before the election of his successors. Sedevacantism is an opinion regarding a matter of fact, not a matter of dogma. History proves that there can be extended vacancies of the papacy and honest errors regarding who is pope.

    We can disagree with Fr. Cekada on a matter of pure judgement and not disagree with him in any respect on any matter of dogma.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous7:34 PM

    "Still, it is not easy to see how God could permit His Church to institute rites that are incentives to impiety -- it does not seem God has granted the Church the ability to do that."

    I agree. But can it not be argued that the novus ordo has, by deliberate design of its ambiguity and doctrinal insufficiency, to say the least, proven its ability to facilitate impieties in myriad ways impossible to imagine happening with the ancient Roman rite?

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
  22. Martin7:43 PM

    Mr Paulitz,
    Fair enough.
    I was just making an observation.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous7:44 PM

    I think that the article is a wonderful summation of Mr. Michael Davies's explanation, as well as a valuable enlargement of it in certain respects. I have done much thinking on these points in the past and have something to add to them but I don't have the time to do that right now. I want to do a professional job of it. Rants on blogs are fun but should never be confused with serious argumentation. I would like to offer some explanation of the impact of the change in the Consecration formula, looking at the matter from a literary point of view. For example, I plan to argue that there is a major difference in literary terms between "This is my Body" and "This is my Body which will be given up for you". I shall be arguing some day that the latter expression casts the action into a past time in order to impart an emphatically commemorative force to it. The reformers were somethimes quite subtle in altering the meaning of the Mass from divine action to communication of a commemoration. Enough said for now.

    In regard to the same passage, one might consider the difference in syntactical form. Very important in my view. Without explaining why, I note that, in the Sarum Use, the rubrics direct that the shorter form be said all in one breath to show its unity. No exception subordinate clauses there . . . .

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Joe B8:28 PM

    "Graces are reduced because there are fewer Masses, because the prayers in these Masses are fewer, and because the devotion in these prayers is less ... Moreover, since many prayers have been eliminated from the Old Rite, there will be many fewer graces also for this reason: less will be received by he who asks for less ... Finally, the dispositions of the celebrant and of those who attend the Mass determine the amount of graces received for the Church, for those for whom the Mass is offered, and for those present. The New Rite is less conducive to devotion, so that the quantity of these graces will be less."

    This addresses the subject of unequal actual grace between masses, a question raised on Rorate more than once.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous8:31 PM

    "I am grateful for SP, and I do not deny the validity of the novus ordo. But there exists the ancient Roman rite of the Mass, and there exists the concocted liturgy called the novus ordo."

    Well said!

    Instead of concocted, you can also call it what Card. Ratzinger called it -- fabricated.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous8:59 PM

    Attn. Anonymous critical of Michael Davies:

    Kindly be specific on your critique
    and don't be afraid to leave your name. He has done too much for the Traditional Movement to leave your opinion hanging where you left it.

    Attn. Mr. Paulitz:

    No it is not enough said that Fr.
    Cekada is a sedevacantist. For sure he is not always right but neither is he always wrong. Otherwise he would not be allowed to post here.

    A.M. LaPietra

    ReplyDelete
  27. Concerning the Council and Trent, Pius V and the New Mass. It it irrelevant whether or not the New Mass existed at the time of the statements in question. The teaching of the Church was the rites approved by the Church are incentives to piety and cannot be held to be incentives to impiety. That would apply to the rites then in use, rites in use prior to that time but no longer in use at the time and any rites which were only developed/created later-any rite approved by the authority of the Catholic Church.

    One could argue that a given rite is more likely than another to aid piety in a given society, culture, historical context, etc.

    One could also argue that more gestures of reverence, more explicity theology, etc. will often in practice (though not as an absolute principle in theory) better aid people's piety.

    One could also point out that a given liturgy is often celebrated in an abusive way (one not intended by Church authority). In this case the rite itself, properly, celebrated, would be an incentive to piety but the abuses of it could be the opposite.

    So one could critique the reasons why the New Mass was written and implemented, one could argue that use of the Tridentine Mass will tend to be more effective from a pastoral perspective, and various other positions; provided one accept that the New Mass (when celebrated according to the official text and rubrics without abuses) is orthodox and an incentive to piety.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous9:27 PM

    A few criticisms, for the sake of scholarship in these matters.

    In the section on the Canon the author makes a number of accusations of "Protestantization", but these seem to be based more in polemics than real scholarship and consideration of the liturgical tradition.

    1) On "hunc praelcarem calicem" reduced to "calicem", I haven't been able to find this change in the online texts of the Novus Ordo, in the Latin the old text seems to remain, even in the new Eucharistic Prayers.

    2)On the "Pauline anemnesis", how does this really differ from "Hæc quotiescúmque fecéritis, in mei memóriam faciétis." of the Roman Canon?

    3) On the "quod pro vobis tradetur", is the really a Protestantization? It Appears in the Mozarabic Rite and Byzantine Rite.

    4) The Acclamation also appears Mozarabic rite. Perhaps also in the Ambrosian rite?

    Any responses?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous9:32 PM

    Mr. Paulitz:

    Indeed, Cardinal Ratzinger called it fabricated, and now Papa Ratzinger christens it the Ordinary Form!

    Truly, there are mysteries all around us.

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous11:16 PM

    I never questioned whether Fr. Cekada is right on certain subjects. But on the biggest one, he is in horrific error. So sending the work of a heretic to all priests wouldn't be very wise.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous11:17 PM

    I never questioned whether Fr. Cekada is right on certain subjects. But on the biggest one, he is in horrific error. So sending the work of a heretic to all priests wouldn't be very wise.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous11:25 PM

    Mr. Paulitz,

    Re Cekada...What is the "biggest subject" he is wrong on?

    M. Banks

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous11:39 PM

    "I never questioned whether Fr. Cekada is right on certain subjects. But on the biggest one, he is in horrific error"
    Mr Paulitz,
    Fr Cekada does not believe in the Real Presence?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous11:58 PM

    I noticed in the essay the author did not point out that Trent did not sppress variations of the Roman Rite that were over 200 years old. The Roman Rite had diocesan variations as well as those used by orders. All of these witness to the organic nature of the liturgy.
    What I find conclusive is that the bishops who were first shown the 1970 Mass rejected it. That was without all the extras we get now such as extrordinary ministers and communion on the hand, offertory processions etc. They rejected it even though it was celebrated Eastward faciing in the Sistine Chapel with music. Whe this is combined with the Ottaviani Intervention I am convinced.
    Paul VI did indeed use papal authority to attack tradition then use it to uphold traditional teaching on contraception. That is the confusing contradiction and one which causes me great inner turmoil. It is like having a bipolar parent.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @ Christopher J. Paulitz -- RE file hosting:

    FYI: I've found that Dropbox.com works well as a way to host/share occasional documents or files. Anything placed in the 'Public' folder of your Dropbox.com account has a unique URL/link for direct downloading of the file, and the URL can be used on your blog (or anywhere else).

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous12:31 AM

    The fact that a good priest who is trying to be intellectually honest has to not identify himself because of repraisels by the hierarchy speaks volumnes about the sickness prevalent in the church.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous1:17 AM

    If Anon. 21.27 were himself a real scholar, he might supply his name or at least his initials.

    Peter Karl T. Perkins
    (P.K.T.P.)

    Also, the author does not say that the changes mentioned make the New Mass Protestant but that the changes, given their context, show a Protestant spirit. It is not a question of whether certain rites use the longer form for the Consecration. The change in form within a ritual church must be seen as a departure from a standard, and it carries a meaning given that standard. For example, Trent kept Communion in one kind not because there was something wrong with Communion in both species but because of the challenge from Protestantism, which is a Western context.

    Quo pro vobis tradetur was added in order to make the Consecration a memorial in force, since it was consistent with an entire programme of substituing a memoral for a Sacrifice. By adding the clause, it is re-presented in past time and its utterance therefore becomes more of a reminder of the Last Supper. Gone is the previous force in the Rite, that the words actualise a sacramental intent here and now.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous1:43 AM

    I don't think that the pastor of my parish will be allowing me to place of packet of these brochures/booklets anyplace in our Church.

    Delphina

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous2:00 AM

    PKTP, we are not all sedecacantists in the context that you know I'm speaking of. And if you are a SV, like Fr. Cekada, which is certain heresy, then it's not your foot I'd worry about.

    And no, he doesn't believe in the Real Presense. Not in the NO Mass.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous3:53 AM

    @P.K.T.P.

    I am Anon. 21.27, and I gladly give my initials. L.V.T. (Luke Vittorio Togni or "Satius" on AQ). I'm not quite a real scholar yet, just a hatchling MA student here at Dalhousie Classics.

    I agree with your assessment of these changes, that their was a protestantizing spirit at work, but I think we need to be careful in distinguishing why such texts or rubrics, which may be perfectly orthodox and right in their own rite might be construed as some kind of defect here. Many of the elements in the NOM, as you know, are found elsewhere legitimately, and I think that is why these changes are so pernicious; they have a certain basis in the real liturgical tradition.

    I'm wary of an approach which oversimplifies and ignores the legitimate (and I think healthy) liturgical diversity which is properly Catholic. I applaud this priests response to the NO missal, it's defects and creation need to be brought to public light. Nevertheless, I think we need the best and most accurate arguments we can muster.

    L.V.T.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous5:54 PM

    Christopher J. Paulitz said in regard to father Cekada:
    "And no, he doesn't believe in the Real Presense. Not in the NO Mass."
    I am afraid that CJP has not read what father Cekada has written re NOM that he considers perfectly legitimate. If so, he believes in the Real Presence in it.
    CM

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous8:04 PM

    L.V.T.:

    My principal point is that the mere existence of practices in one rite does not automatically justifiy their introduction into another. Every Rite has not only its own integrity but also a specific context which imparts meaning in it. Liberals in the church frequently revolutionised the Roman Rite on the grounds that a new practice was done by the Byzantines or Armenians. When they didn't like what the Byzantines were doing, however (such as facing east, both priest and people), they found other excuses for change.

    What makes the Roman Rite distinct in terms of context (inter alia) is Protestantism. And one aspect of Protestantism is the substitution of a memorial meal for a propitiatory Sacrifice. Some Eastern practices might be wonderful in Eastern praxis but, when transferred to a Roman context, they might tend to suggest a Protestant theology. This is owing to the difference in theological context.

    In the case of the text for the Consecration formula, Protestants uniformly changed from one Biblical passage to another because this change helped shift emphasis to a memorial meal. The fact that some Eastern Catholics might use the text preferred late on by Protestants is completely irrelevant given the disparity of context.

    So I would also caution against making changes in a Rite without taking into account the theological context. There is a maxim adopted at Vatican II (incredibly!) that no change should be made to a liturgy unless the good of the Church genuinely necessitated it. There is a reason for this principle. I hope that my own text here elucidates that reason.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous8:15 PM

    Mr. Paulitz:
    Mr. Paulitz:

    1. I am not a sedevacantist or sedeprivationist, and I acknowledge that Benedict XVI (who may never on any account be called just 'Benedict', as the brain-dead journalists call him) is the real Pope. I even acknowledge that Paul VI was a real pope, although I think that he was the worst pope in the history of Holy Church--worse, in his effect on the Faith, than Alexander of the same number.

    2. You are DEAD WRONG is saying that sedevacantism is heresy. You literally do not know what you are writing about. Sedevacantism, when mistkaken, is an error but it is not heresy. It is error in a matter of fact that does not regard faith or morals. You are out of your league.

    In the case of sedevacantists, I would say that we should pray that their minds be illuminated, but we can't stop them from praying contrariwise that ours be.

    Being mistaken about who the real pope is is not at like being mistaken about a truth declared by Holy Church, whether infallibily or not. But to be free of sin, the error must be an honest one and not a lie made to scandalise others. However, that is a matter for the internal forum, not this blog.

    I happen to think that there are honest sedevacantists out there, and I do not much wonder why when I see abominations such as Assisi 1986.

    Come, Holy Ghost, fill the hearts of Thy faitful, and enkindle in them the fire of Thy love.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous11:42 PM

    @ P.K.T.P.

    I am in complete agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I think this should be printed out and sent to all the Bishops.

    I'm an ordinary Joe Construction worker.....I can see from this great article exactly what is wrong with the Novus Ordo.....but I've also known these things for years...decades.

    But a Bishop reading this.....and not implementing liturgical changes in his Diocese ....Pronto.....

    Should be treated as a traitor to the Faith.....and should be told the same to his very face.....

    I'm away to look for a printer.....

    ReplyDelete
  46. P.K.T.P. said in part:

    Being mistaken about who the real pope is is not at like being mistaken about a truth declared by Holy Church, whether infallibily or not. But to be free of sin, the error must be an honest one and not a lie made to scandalise others. However, that is a matter for the internal forum, not this blog.

    I happen to think that there are honest sedevacantists out there, and I do not much wonder why when I see abominations such as Assisi 1986.

    Here, here! Agree wholeheartedly. We must take into consideration the reasons why someone might take a sedevacantist or sedeprivationist position. There but for the grace of God go we.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Re: my last comment. Sorry for the mispelling - it should have read: "Hear, Hear!" after the House of Commons phrase Hear Ye, Hear Ye.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous12:46 AM

    Paul, thanks for your correction! I lived in England for many years and constantly see 'here, here' on American blogs. Drives me batty! Also appreciate the great bulk of your comments here.

    Thomas

    ReplyDelete
  49. Steve9:30 AM

    No, being a sedevecantist is not herasey...but it is schismatic, by willfuly refusing to submit to the lawful authority of Christ's true Vicar.

    ReplyDelete
  50. No, being a sedevecantist is not herasey(sic)...but it is schismatic, by willfuly refusing to submit to the lawful authority of Christ's true Vicar.

    Ah, but there's the rub - "lawful authority". Just what is and, more importantly, what is not "lawful authority"? Can a pope command someone to sin, at least what is subjectively a sin in that person's mind? Even, more to the point why continue harping on the sins of the sedevacantists or sedeprivationists? just exactly what does that contribute to the coming together of His Mystical Body? What about the sins of the modernists? Yes, indeed, what about their sins? Of course, we know that they do not recognize sin anymore, at least not in their assemblies.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous5:02 PM

    Now we have Steve's error on here. Have these people never even bothered to look at Canon 751--or the theology it is grounded on--before they proclaim their ignorance to the world?

    We have all these hyper-loyalists, many of them defensive converts, who want to say that any failure to accept the pontificate of Benedict XVI or Paul VI is heresy, apostasy, infidelity, schism--whatever negarive term they can think of. Why not throw in othes, no less absurd, such as thief, adulterer, or sloth?

    Schism consists in a WITHDRAWAL of submission to the Supreme Pontiff, not to an initial denial that a certain man IS the Supreme Pontiff. Steve's assertion is a text-book case of a priori faulty reasoning.

    We may certainly, in good conscience, reprehend those who fail to recognise the man whom we deem to be the Supreme Pontiff. But that does not mean that those whom we condemn are heretics or schismatics or _____ [fill in the blank with whatever term you choose]. Moreoever, all men of good conscience can make errors in judgement (with the exception of President Obama, who never errs). People in the past followed the wrong papal claimant honestly (e.g. during the Great Schism but also in a few earlier schisms).

    The man who is mistakenly a sedevacantist or sedeprivationist in good conscience is not a schismatic or a heretic or an apostate; nor is he a sinner. He is merely sadly mistaken. If such a mistake comes from pride or negligence, it certainly is sinful, but it may be an honest mistake. Such a person is in a state of error regading a matter of fact but is not a sinner and is not a schismatic or a heretic. That's why we have the separate term 'sedevacantist'.

    With all the knee-jerk reactions of the hyper-loyalists on this blog, there is the belief that I am defending Fr. Cekada here or his position. Not so. False. I don't accept his conclusions. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I (the more impressive of the two John Pauls), John Paul II (a.k.a. 'the Small') and Benedict XVI are all true popes. That is what I believe, but, guess what?, I'm not perfect either and I could be mistaken!

    Those who are calling Fr. Cekada a heretic or a schismatic owe him an apology on this blog, but I'm betting that they are too prideful to admit to their own ignorance and error. Anyway, if we want to find at least material heretics, we don't need to examine Fr. Cekada: we need only look to some of our more notorious bishops. One in California, soon to retire, comes to mind.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Steve4:12 AM

    Anonymous 08 January, 2011 17:02,
    Let us be clear, I said a willful rufusal to submit to the true Vicar of Christ is objectivly Schismatic. What is wrong with that statement? I made no judgment concerning any particular subject (person(s) or group(s)). Nor did I make any case for or against any papacy in question. I was only speaking of an objective serious sinful act. Sincer or not; the moon is either made of blue cheese or it's not. Protestants may be sincer; but that dosen't justify their disobedience. Just saying. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous7:53 AM

    No, Steve, you wrote this:

    "No, being a sedevecantist is not herasey...but it is schismatic, by willfuly refusing to submit to the lawful authority of Christ's true Vicar."


    Wrong. Yes, schism is a wilful withdrawal of submission from the Supreme Pontiff. However, sedevacantism is not that at all. Sedevacantism does not equal schism. Sedevacantism is the honest belief that one who claims to be pope is not, that the Chair of Peter is vacant. Obviously, then, the sedevacantist does not refuse to submit to the papal authority; rather, he denies that the one claiming to be pope really is pope. Not the same thing at all.

    Sedevacantists are not per se schismatics. So, if Fr. Cekada is a sedevacantist, that does not make him a schismatic, and certainly not a heretic.


    So why are you equating sedevacantism with schism? The man who really believes that Joe is not Pope cannot "wilfully refuse [which is a redundancy, since all refusals are wilful byu definition]" to submit to Joe as Pope.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!