gladius_veritatis
Level 5
Reputation: 1057
(Likers: 98 / Critics: 65)
Group: Users
Posts: 7,953
Joined: Aug 25, 2006
|
The truth about Fr Anthony Cekada and Bishop Dolan
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=7888
A Question of Authority
Rev. Anthony Cekada
Beware him who says: "Follow me or die!"
A FEW WEEKS AGO, I was invited to attend a conclave and
help elect a pope.
Thirty years ago, the offer would have been irresistible,
but these days any traditional Catholic priest whose name appears on a number
> of mailing lists
> receives at least one such invitation a year. This
> year's conclave will
> convene somewhere in Kansas during July. Needless to say, I
> plan to be
> elsewhere.
>
> A home-made conclave strikes us as bizarre or even comical.
> Who are these
> people in Kansas --last year, it was Canada -- to elect the
> Successor of
> Peter and Christ's Vicar on earth? Why propose such
> nonsense?
>
> The outlandish example, nevertheless, illustrates a very
> real dilemma which
> traditional Catholics face: The Church's very nature is
> hierarchical,
> founded on an authority which comes from Christ Himself.
> But where do we
> turn when men of the Church in positions of authority
> defect from the faith,
> as happened in our own time? How then do we resolve
> pressing issues in, say,
> theology or canon law or pastoral practice -- questions
> which only someone
> with real authority can resolve?
>
> The organizers of the Kansas conclave would answer:
> It's simple; elect a
> pope. Once you've got a pope, you're home free.
> He'll have supreme
> authority, he'll appoint a Catholic hierarchy, and
> he'll resolve all the
> questions.
>
> A Holding Action
>
> Most Catholics who are attempting to preserve the
> traditional Mass and the
> integral Catholic faith, clergy and laity alike,
> instinctively recognize the
> folly of the conclavists' extreme enterprise. We
> understand, at least
> implicitly, that our efforts are but a "holding
> action" to save as many
> souls as we can until better days arrive. And most of us
> realize, again at
> least implicitly, that it would be gravely wrong -- indeed,
> manifestly
> schismatic -- to set up a parallel "hierarchy" on
> our own by endowing some
> person or organization with "authority" to be our
> magisterium, supreme
> lawmaker, and universal judge.
>
> No traditional clergyman, remember, be he priest or even
> bishop, possesses
> ordinary jurisdiction -- power from the Church to command
> subjects, make
> laws, interpret them authoritatively, conduct trials, issue
> judgements,
> settle legal disputes, and inflict canonical penalties.
> Church law grants
> ordinary jurisdiction only to individuals formally
> appointed to specific
> offices: to a bishop, for instance, whom the pope names as
> head of a
> diocese, or to a priest whom the head of a diocese
> officially designates a
> pastor, or to another priest whom the pope appoints judge
> in an
> ecclesiastical tribunal.
>
> Unlike these officials, a priest or bishop who celebrates
> the traditional
> Mass enjoys only supplied jurisdiction -- in essence, just
> enough power to
> dispense the sacraments.
>
> Presenting... "Autsequism" !
>
> Traditional Catholic clergymen acknowledge the narrow scope
> of their
> authority -- usually. However, a priest (or bishop or even
> a layman) can
> easily step over the line, when, on one particular issue
> say, he acts as if
> he were an authoritative teacher, lawmaker and judge by
> inflicting the
> equivalent of ecclesiastical penalties on those who cross
> him.
>
> This I call the "Follow-me-or-die!" syndrome --or
> to give it a more formal
> name, "autsequism" (from aut sequi, aut mori, the
> Latin rendering of the
> phrase).
>
> The syndrome works this way: Father W (or Writer X, or
> Bishop Y, or the
> Society of Z, for that matter) looks at a disputed
> theological question or a
> sticky problem of how to apply the norms of Canon Law or
> pastoral practice
> in a given situation. He marshals some principles (so far,
> so good), gathers
> evidence (a reasonable step), arrives at some conclusion
> (fair enough, one
> hopes), and then jumps to condemn all clergy and layfolk
> who disagree with
> his solution as, variously, heretics, schismatics, sinners
> or generic
> reprobates acting in complete bad faith and therefore to be
> avoided. (Whoa!)
>
>
> It is in the final phase of the process -- arrogating to
> himself the
> authority to inflict a penalty for non-assent -- where the
> perpetrator
> exceeds his jurisdictional speed limit and careens off into
> the world of
> follow-me-or-die.
>
> Some Follow-Me-or-Die Issues Autsequism has been on the
> traditionalist scene
> for a long time and rears its head in numerous guises:
>
> Various non-sedevacantist groups declaring sedevacantist
> groups
> "schismatic," and to be avoided.
> Various sedevacantist groups and priests declaring
> non-sedevacantist groups
> heretical or schismatic, and equally to be avoided.
> A priest in Pennsylvania issuing a letter of
> "excommunication" to an
> obnoxious layman.
> A priest on the West Coast announcing that members of the
> Birch Society were
> barred from receiving the sacraments in his church.
> A group of traditionalist sisters, who themselves enjoy no
> canonical
> recognition, declaring a former member's renewal of
> vows "sacrilegious" and
> "uncanonical."
> A lay group in the Middle West requiring a guest priest to
> ascribe in
> writing to their position on the pope before they allow him
> to perform a
> wedding in their church.
> To understand fully the consequences of the
> follow-me-or-die syndrome, it's
> best to look at some cases a bit more closely. Two recent
> manifestations,
> encountered of late in my own pastoral experience, are
> perfect for this
> purpose. Both concern the conditions required for the
> reception or
> administration of the sacraments.
>
> Suffer the Children
>
> Children who assist at Mass in the chapels I serve have no
> access to a
> bishop who will confirm them with the traditional rite.
> Some parents,
> therefore, bring their children to one of the chapels
> operated by the
> Society of St. Pius X, when one of the Society's
> bishops makes his yearly
> rounds. One would think that the Society would not object
> to this -- after
> all, it seems desirable that as many children as possible
> receive this
> sacrament. But one would think wrong, and therein lies a
> story.
>
> Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society,
> ordained me a priest
> in 1977. Some years later, in 1983, I was among a group of
> nine American
> priests who, among other things, refused to implement a
> series of liturgical
> changes he proposed and who declined to accept certain of
> his private
> theological opinions. (Though His Grace is a bishop, he is
> not the head of a
> diocese, and hence enjoys no jurisdiction from the pope to
> make and enforce
> laws.) This led to a parting of the ways between His Grace
> and the nine of
> us, and there the matter remains.
>
> Plenty to Declare
>
> Seven years later, in 1990, some families who assist at my
> Masses presented
> their children for Confirmation at a chapel one of the
> Society's bishops was
> to visit. The priest in charge, in turn, presented them
> with a two-page,
> single-spaced Declaration for their children to sign as a
> condition for the
> reception of Confirmation. The purpose of the Declaration
> (which combines
> heavy doses of theological terminology, execrable English,
> and Latin quotes
> from the Code of Canon Law -- for ten-year-olds, mind you!)
> was to force
> candidates (a) to repudiate theological opinions which the
> Society thinks I
> hold, and (b) to accept the theological positions which the
> Society holds
> (or thinks it holds -- a bit tricky this).
>
> Outrage, of course, is the proper reaction. But analyze the
> thought
> processes which lead to this "extra" requirement:
> The Society has drawn its
> conclusions on certain theological, rubrical or canonical
> questions. Fine.
> These opinions, the Society feels, are diametrically
> opposed to those of
> Father Cekada, whom the Society considers to be dead wrong.
> Fine, and no
> surprise to me. But then, by presenting a Declaration to
> the confirmands,
> the Society proceeds to threaten those who may not share
> its conclusions
> with the equivalent of an ecclesiastical penalty: Accept
> our principles,
> evidence, conclusions and judgements on all points by
> signing this
> Declaration, or be denied a sacrament.
>
> The Society, thus, sets itself up like an ad hoc
> mini-magisterium, lawmaker
> and ecclesiastical judge with power to enforce its will --
> Follow me or die,
> in other words.
>
> Error and Correction
>
> For nearly a year now, I have been functioning as de facto
> "pastor" of St.
> Clare's Mission in Columbus, Ohio, where I travel every
> Sunday to celebrate
> Mass. Among the souls now worshipping there are some lay
> people who, at
> various points and in differing degrees, became supporters
> of an institution
> in Spokane, Washington called Mount St. Michael's. The
> St. Michael's group
> was founded by Francis Schuckardt, a lay preacher of the
> Fatima Message who
> in the 1960's gathered together a group of enthusiastic
> followers, and bit
> by bit, proceeded to construct for himself what I can only
> describe as a
> classic personality cult. In 1970, Schuckardt had a married
> Old Catholic
> "bishop," one Daniel Q. Brown, consecrate him a
> "bishop." ("Old Catholic" is
> a generic term for a number of schismatic sects originating
> in the 17th and
> 19th centuries.)
>
> Despite this, Schuckardt's magnetic personality,
> eloquence and emphasis on
> the traditional Mass and Marian piety gained many lay
> adherents for his
> movement in various parts of the U.S. over the years. Given
> the average
> layman's ignorance of the Old Catholic movement's
> schismatic nature -- I
> have more than once met other traditional Catholics who
> have unwittingly
> gotten mixed up with Old Catholicism -- it is only fair to
> assume that most
> people followed along in good faith with no thought at all
> of getting
> involved with the Old Catholic schism.
>
> In the early 1980's, some senior members of the group,
> by then located in
> Spokane, forced Schuckardt out, and apparently began the
> process of trying
> to set things aright. On April 23, 1985, the group abjured
> its errors, and
> has circulated at least two public statements attesting to
> the fact. The new
> leadership, moreover, has stated that the group was
> formerly a "cult," that
> the members want only to be good traditional Catholics and
> that the
> leadership wants to bring everything they do into line with
> traditional
> Catholic beliefs and practices.
>
> Now once again, one would think that all would rejoice at
> the outcome --
> abjuration, renunciation of past errors, determination just
> to be good
> Catholics and so on. But again, one would think wrong, and
> again, therein
> lies another story.
>
> An Unexpected Letter
>
> Recently, I received a lengthy and unexpected letter from
> Rev. Clarence
> Kelly, a priest with whom I formerly worked in Oyster Bay
> Cove, New York,
> but with whom I have had no connection since July, 1989.
>
> In a nutshell, Father: (a) Condemns the misdeeds of Francis
> Schuckardt,
> particularly his involvement with Old Catholics --
> something I did years
> ago, by the way, in a lengthy article I wrote on the Old
> Catholic movement.
> (b) Dismisses as "insincere or "contrived"
> (based on standards of his own
> creation, alas!) the abjuration of error and the other
> public recantations
> the group and its leaders made after Schuckardt's
> expulsion. (c) Presumes
> that everyone ever associated with Mount St. Michael's,
> including families
> two thousand miles away in Columbus, acted in complete bad
> faith (i.e.,
> knowing involvement with Old Catholics was wrong or
> schismatic, but going
> along with it anyway), and (d) Concludes that everyone
> connected with St.
> Michael's is really still part of "an Old Catholic
> sect."
>
> But why, the reader will ask, is Father Kelly writing to
> you about it,
> Father Cekada, since you have no connection whatsoever with
> either Father
> Kelly or Mount St. Michael's? Well, having weighed the
> matter and arrived at
> his conclusion, Father Kelly wrote to inform me of his
> decision that I,
> Father Cekada, must now (a) regard some of my parishioners
> as unrepentant
> schismatics and (b) deny them the sacraments. If I do
> otherwise, I
> "scandalize and endanger their souls and faith,"
> I "pollute the purity of
> the Catholic religion," and I become a wolf in
> sheep's clothing -- language
> of the sort, please note, normally reserved to papal
> decrees pronouncing
> condemnatory sentences.
>
> Examine the process by which he reached this practical
> conclusion: Father
> Kelly (who, like any other traditional priest or
> organization, possesses no
> juridical authority whatsoever) set up his own rules by
> which those whom he
> accused would be judged, and when (naturally) the accused
> didn't measure up,
> he found them all guilty as charged. He then imposed the
> penalty: some of
> your parishioners, Father Cekada, are to be denied the
> sacraments, and
> should you act otherwise, you're a threat to the
> Catholic religion and must
> be condemned publicly as such.
>
> Thus like the Society of St. Pius X, Father Kelly, too, set
> himself up like
> an ad hoc mini-magisterium, lawmaker and ecclesiastical
> judge with power to
> enforce his will -- Follow me or die, in other words.
>
> The Faithful in Good Faith
>
> An additional observation on both the foregoing cases is in
> order. No
> traditional organization or priest that I know of -- and
> this includes both
> the Society and Father Kelly -- requires formal
> declarations or abjurations
> from Novus ordo Catholics who "convert" and want
> to receive the traditional
> sacraments. The reasonable assumption behind this is that
> newcomers who
> claim to be Catholics and who are trying to act like
> Catholics -- whatever
> their past involvement in the errors and depredations of
> the Conciliar
> religion -- have: (a) at least acted in good faith, and (b)
> been absolved of
> any censure they may have incurred, once they have gone to
> confession to a
> traditional priest. Given this assumption, it seems
> inimical to the
> salvation of souls -- and just plain silly -- to dream up
> "extra"
> requirements to impose on people who have rejected the
> Conciliar religion
> for years.
>
> False Dilemmas
>
> The follow-me-or-die syndrome has brought nothing but grief
> to a scattered
> flock trying desperately to preserve the faith under
> circumstances already
> adverse enough. Priests, bishops and organizations who have
> played the
> hierarch have usually ended up inflicting on traditional
> Catholic groups and
> individuals false dilemmas, public discord, contrived
> crises of conscience,
> scandal, family strife, and a host of other evils --
> precisely the sort of
> things which drive people away from the true Mass rather
> than draw them to
> it.
>
> While no one appreciates absolute certitude more than
> Catholics faithful to
> tradition, those of us responsible for shepherding the
> flocks must take care
> lest we invest pronouncements which are merely our opinions
> with the sort of
> authority that neither we nor our opinions possess. Not
> absolutely every
> theory, opinion or practical judgement we come up with,
> after all, is a
> matter of grace or guilt, salvation or perdition, heaven or
> hell. Should we
> pretend otherwise and start dishing out penalties all
> around, we (and not
> the targets of our ire) become the ones leading a slow
> waltz to schism.
>
> Antidote to Autsequism
>
> The antidote to autsequism is, I think, two-fold:
>
> Acknowledge your limits: Whatever your opinion on any of
> the great issues
> traditional Catholics so often debate, remember that you
> have no authority
> from Christ and the Church to resolve it definitively, nor
> can you inflict
> censures on those who disagree with your conclusions.
>
Presume good will: Not everyone is as great a genius as you are in dogma, ecclesiology, canon law, church history, moral or whatever; naturally, your opponents cannot perceive the brilliance of your reasoning. But it might be nice (at least once in a while) to presume that they have some good will. Try it.
The follow-me-or-die syndrome probably won't disappear
> till God, in His good
> time, restores order throughout the Church. In the
> meantime, since disagree
> we must, let us pray for a bit more prudence and common
> sense.
>
> June, 1990. St. Hugh of Lincoln Church
> 2401 South 12th Street, Milwaukee WI 53215
|
.........................
+ Vincit veritas +
|
| Posted Apr 26, 2009, 9:36 pm |
|
Ignored by: 2
|
|
|
