Author Topic: Fr. Jenkins on Sedevacantism and Novus Ordo (Read 5213 times)

LucasL · « **on:** October 21, 2015, 03:26:52 AM »

I came across this video on youtube

I remember watching a good video that Fr. Jenkins were invited to talk about Archibishop Lefebvre and the false accusations that Jєωs and freemansons started to make about Pope Pius XII help with "the nαzιs" (while in fact he helped most Jєωs that any other people in Italy). Both Fr. Kelly and Fr Jenkins debunked the myth about Pius XII ()

Fr. Jenkins opinions seems very fair and balanced, but I've read many bad comments about SSPV here. I could not find why though.

I came across this http://www.fathercekada.com/2010/01/21/general-confession-as-social-control/

Is it really social control? on the exterior it doesn't sound like Fr. Jenkins would do that, but since I know very little about SSPV I hope someone could give me more information please

What's all about Fr Jenkins that some people here find him and SSPV dangerous?

Thank you all

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** October 21, 2015, 08:34:44 AM »

I know Father Jenkins, and he is about as non-dogmatic a sedevacantist as you'll ever meet. He's very balanced on this matter. I have a lot of respect for him.

Where people have issues with the SSPV is in their Sacramental nαzιsm. They are reported to have denied the Last Sacraments to a dying "Feeneyite" ... despite the fact that they had a close working relationship with a woman who was the secretary to Bishop Alfred Mendez and an open Feeneyite. They also deny the Sacraments to anyone who might frequent a CMRI chapel. Openly they delcare the Thuc-line priests to be invalid, but in a closed meeting that was leaked, then-Father Kelly stated something along the lines of, "We can't tell people they're valid because then people might go there." They also insist that a large number of SSPX priests are invalid due to the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre sometimes performed priestly ordinations with "one hand only" vs. the "hands" specified in the rubrics. This has been thoroughly debunked (Eastern Rites use 1 hand and the Roman Rite rubrics for several centuries used 1 hand also), but they persist in spreading this around, considering their rival Father/Bishop Dolan to be invalid as a result and referring to him as "one-hand Dan". They also consider Bishop Williamson to be invalid for the same reason and have conditionally reconfirmed people who had been confirmed by Bishop Williamson. They refuse the Sacraments to women with slightly-short skirts whereas certain families who were part of the "in" crowd at some of their chapels were given the Sacraments despite much more immodest dress than others who were refused.

In addition, Father Cekada's behavior in particular when "The Nine" split from the SSPX was absolutely deplorable. He treated Archbishop Lefebvre in an extremely vile manner. They ripped off a lot of SSPX properties using various pre-orchestrated ploys (like putting them in Father Kelly's name to begin with). Several of their follower seminarians laid low in the SSPX instead of leaving, pronounced the vow of obedience to the SSPX Superior (+Lefebvre), got ordained to the priesthood, and then immediately bolted. Some people in the SSPX refer to them as having "stolen" the priesthood.

They apply various reasoning about why the Thuc line bishops are not valid, and yet the EXACT SAME conditions applied when Archbishop Alfred Mendez consecrated Bishop Kelly; they refuse to admit the hypocrisy and inconsistency in it.

TKGS · « **Reply #2 on:** October 21, 2015, 10:41:09 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Several...seminarians laid low in the SSPX instead of leaving, pronounced the vow of obedience to the SSPX Superior (+Lefebvre), got ordained to the priesthood, and then immediately bolted. Some people in the SSPX refer to them as having "stolen" the priesthood.

Since when did SSPX seminarians make vows of obedience to the SSPX Superior? The SSPX always maintains that they are not a religious order.

From the SSPX website:

Quote

The Society of St. Pius X is an international priestly society of common life without vows, whose purpose is to train, support, and encourage holy priests so that they may effectively spread the Catholic faith throughout the world.

PG · « **Reply #3 on:** October 21, 2015, 12:48:16 PM »

irifleo - ladislaus is mixing truth and error, but it is mostly error.

The sspv/cspv does not say that thuc line is "invalid". They say that they are "doubtful", and therefore in the practical order they treat them as "invalid"(which is the correct way according to tradition to deal with it). So, it is only in the "practical order", which is a most important distinction.

This same comment applies to +Dolan and +williamson. They consider +Dolan doubtful, and I think it is correct that they consider +Williamson doubtful(which is a shame IMO).

As for all of this, what bothers me is that all this is "rubbed in" you could say. Their sermons are good, but there are still too many sermons mentioning and or reminding us in one way or another of the doubtful thuc line and doubtful sacraments elsewhere. They do it in a very subtle way. I mean every sermon always reminds the people how fortunate they are to have "true valid sacraments"(indirectly implying all of the "false sacraments" on the market). I personally would like to hear sermons about other topics.

I don't take issue with their position holding that thuc line is doubtful, but what bothers me is all of the emphasis placed on it both directly and indirectly.

That "leaked meeting" information is simply a story of fr. cekada's. And, fr. cekada is not trustworthy. Ladislaus even comments about how "extremely vile" fr. cekada was to +lefebvre.

The +Mendez secretary feeneyite story is doubtful. Because, feeneyites try to "kidnap" you could say true traditionalists who simply hold the eens dogma by saying that they too are "feeneyiets". But, that(eens) is not feeneyism. A feeneyite is one who rejects BoB/BoD. And, that is the heresy. But, they hide behind EENS. Feeneyits are trying to steal EENS from catholicism, and claim it as their own, when it is not. All false religions do this along some line(fight over the scraps that fall from the table). So, +Mendez's secretary may have just been a true and solid eens catholic, who BoB/BoD deniers(feeneyits) are trying to claim as their own. It is most wicked what they(feeneyites) do.

The "exact same" conditions do not at all apply to the +mendez consecration of +Kelly. That is garbage.

irirfleo - listen to the cspv sunday sermons from stpiusvchapel.org, and judge the group for yourself. I like them, and they are proximate to the true trad position imo; which I think is somewhere in between that of the resistance and them.

LucasL · « **Reply #4 on:** October 21, 2015, 01:22:34 PM »

Thanks for the info ! I really appreciate it so far.

Personally I don't like the fact that Fr. Cekada have split from SSPX BUT:

I've read his interview about the reason the split "the nine" and watched one interview where he talks about the Archbishop Lefebvre. Where can I find video or text in which Fr Cekada saying bad things about the Archbishop? (and Fr. Jekins perhaps?)

What about the leaked meeting "We can't say they're true Bishops because people might go there" could someone explain please? audio leak or video leak?

If you could give more info Fr. Cekada I'd be very happy too know more please. Despite reading a bit more on Fr. Cekada than SSPV I have little information regarding Fr. Cekada attitude.

Oh, important question: Who considers +Williamson ordination doubtful ? that's insane but is there such thing or it's just my misinterpretation ?

God Bless

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** October 21, 2015, 01:36:42 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

irifleo - ladislaus is mixing truth and error, but it is mostly error.

Quote

The sspv/cspv does not say that thuc line is "invalid". They say that they are "doubtful", and therefore in the practical order they treat them as "invalid"(which is the correct way according to tradition to deal with it). So, it is only in the "practical order", which is a most important distinction.

This same comment applies to +Dolan and +williamson. They consider +Dolan doubtful, and I think it is correct that they consider +Williamson doubtful(which is a shame IMO).

No, it's not MOSTLY error. Yes, I used "invalid" as shorthand for "invalid for all intents and purposes". In the practical order, "doubtful" = effectively "invalid".

Quote

That "leaked meeting" information is simply a story of fr. cekada's. And, fr. cekada is not trustworthy. Ladislaus even comments about how "extremely vile" fr. cekada was to +lefebvre.

Not true. I heard it directly from a priest who was in the aforementioned meeting -- and it wasn't Father Cekada.

Quote

The +Mendez secretary feeneyite story is doubtful. Because, feeneyites try to "kidnap" you could say true traditionalists who simply hold the eens dogma by saying that they too are "feeneyiets". But, that(eens) is not feeneyism. A feeneyite is one who rejects BoB/BoD.

Natalie White was a known Feeneyite ... and none of your rambling about EENS changes that.

Quote

And, that is the heresy.

Absolute hogwash.

Quote

The "exact same" conditions do not at all apply to the +mendez consecration of +Kelly. That is garbage.

Not even close to garbage. SSPV claim that Thuc was not in his right mind when consecrating bishops. Alfred Mendez had a stroke shortly before consecrating Father Kelly; this affected him so much that he didn't recognize some relatives and close friends who visited him afterwards. Father Kelly admits himself that for some inexplicable reason Bishop Mendez sped up and slurred the essential words when ordaining Fathers Greenwell and Baumberger, even though he had pronounced everything else correctly. Father Kelly needed to make him repeat the essential form several times. For a long time the SSPV refused to name the bishop who had ordained these priests. Bishop Mendez signed the ordination papers with a pseudonym. When directly asked by Father Peter Scott, SSPX Superior of the US at the time, Bishop Mendez forcefully denied having done the ordinations. Consecration was done without co-consecrators (another SSPV piece of "evidence" that they use against Thuc).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 21, 2015, 01:40:31 PM »

http://www.geocities.ws/orthopapism/mendez.html

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #7 on:** October 21, 2015, 02:02:47 PM »

Quote from: irirfleo

I came across this video on youtube

I remember watching a good video that Fr. Jenkins were invited to talk about Archibishop Lefebvre and the false accusations that Jєωs and freemansons started to make about Pope Pius XII help with "the nαzιs" (while in fact he helped most Jєωs that any other people in Italy). Both Fr. Kelly and Fr Jenkins debunked the myth about Pius XII ()

Fr. Jenkins opinions seems very fair and balanced, but I've read many bad comments about SSPV here. I could not find why though.

I came across this http://www.fathercekada.com/2010/01/21/general-confession-as-social-control/

Is it really social control? on the exterior it doesn't sound like Fr. Jenkins would do that, but since I know very little about SSPV I hope someone could give me more information please

What's all about Fr Jenkins that some people here find him and SSPV dangerous?

Thank you all

I'm not sure why you were down-thumbed for asking sincere questions.

Please read the below link to get the truth on the thuc consecrations and what the SSPV teach on them:

http://thucbishops.com/

Here is a website with mainly Cekeda's writings on it:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/

If you go through both of these you will have a more accurate opinion.

The SSPV have cultish tendencies. I personally think they are okay if the only choice for the Sacraments. Many of their Priests are well-trained and very good over all apart from the Thuc issue. But they do follow the company line on imposing unjust rules on the faithful and barring them from the Sacraments for unjust reasons. In the objective realm that is reprehensible.

Their have been real and avoidable problems at Cekeda's parish. He can be considered a reliable source generally but sometimes will put things in a less than objective light if it will benefit him personally.

I do wish things like this did not be pointed out, especially considering how a great number of us, if we were in their shoes may have been just as bad on things, or worse.

I have not watched the videos in question and have no point of view on them. Williamson is a validly consecrated Bishop. The CMRI is the most reliable SV organization. There are various SV Priests that are more reliable, on transplanting vital organs when "brain dead" for instance, than the CMRI.

But overall the official representatives of SV have various problems which I believe is a commentary on the current state of things in the world and in the Church. Satan knows where the real Church is and he attacks it masterfully, especially the clergy, getting them through their pride generally, he knows each of their weakest points and when best to attack them. Pray for all valid Catholic clergy daily. They all need it.

PG · « **Reply #8 on:** October 21, 2015, 02:10:38 PM »

Irirfleo - what is going on with the cspv/sspv concerning +williamson must be this. They do not believe that episcopal consecration supplies for ordination as well. I believe that it does. They doubt it because I think it was pius XII who stated that there are stages or levels you advance in for the sacrament of "orders", and that anyone who denies that is "wrong/in error" in other words. I can't remember exactly how the phrasing goes. However, it does not say that the greater orders(that of bishop) "do not supply" for the lower orders if they are lacking(deacon/priesthood). But, it doesn't say that it does either. So, the sspv/cspv have taken it upon themselves to assume it does not supply. My reading of the lives of the saints and history lead me to believe that it does supply.

There is undeniable video of +Williamson being consecrated by +lefebvre and +de mayer with both hands by each. So, they cannot take issue with that; which means they take issue with the "claimed" one handed ordination of +williamson.

As for the one handed ordinations, I personally cannot judge the even judge the event, because for one it is hush hush, and two it lacks evidence/facts. From what I understand, it lies on the testimony of "one" eyewitness that the whole group of ordinations that day were one handed. +Dolan cannot recall if one or two hands were used. The strength of the testimony lies in the fact that the majority of the early "nine" believed the eyewitness. Which is weak really; the nine are not infallible. Later, some distanced themselves from it(cekada, +sanborn and others), but others did not(the sspv/cspv). So, the strength because of the initial consensus is really no longer there anymore for the argument. And, they don't talk about this. Why is there not a WCB video on this subject? Many want to know. And, surely many are scandalized. Fr. Jenkins did agree to debate this on video at the end of his long debate with fr. cekada. But, that hasn't happened. In sum, it is sad. It just creates more confusion and doubt.

Finally, as for +dolan, I think there is agreement among the sspv/cspv because he was consecrated thuc line on top of the one hand ordination argument. But, as it concerns +Williamson, I doubt that think there is agreement or the same amount of it among them. Because, he was consecrated validly.

If what I have posted is difficult to understand, it is because it is difficult to understand. They don't talk about it. But, I think the policy continues.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** October 21, 2015, 02:20:18 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

Irirfleo - what is going on with the cspv/sspv concerning +williamson must be this. They do not believe that episcopal consecration supplies for ordination as well. I believe that it does.

It's a disputed question among theologians, with the majority saying that it does NOT include ordination within it. Consequently, there's positive doubt regarding whether this is true, whether you happen to believe that it does or not.

It's moot, however, since there's no positive doubt whatsoever about one-handed ordination.

LucasL · « **Reply #10 on:** October 21, 2015, 03:32:04 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: + PG +
Irirfleo - what is going on with the cspv/sspv concerning +williamson must be this. They do not believe that episcopal consecration supplies for ordination as well. I believe that it does.

It's a disputed question among theologians, with the majority saying that it does NOT include ordination within it. Consequently, there's positive doubt regarding whether this is true, whether you happen to believe that it does or not.

It's moot, however, since there's no positive doubt whatsoever about one-handed ordination.

I'm kind lost here. Could someone explain please what does it means "episcopal consecration supplies for ordination as well" regarding Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop De Castro Mayer ?

PG · « **Reply #11 on:** October 21, 2015, 03:40:59 PM »

ladislaus - thanks for that geocities link. I had not read that bottom article by fr. cekada. I have read probably all of the articles on traditionalmass.org, and there is one about bishop mendez. But, that one is not in there. Do you know if fr. cekada has withdrawn that article/distanced himself from it, or does he provide it elsewhere? Because, that article does even up the argument between the +thuc consecrations and +mendez. And, it makes me wonder, why hadn't I already found that. And, why isn't it at the forefront of fr. cekada's articles? Is it because some of the information is twisted and or doubtful, which is not uncommon with fr. cekada?

PG · « **Reply #12 on:** October 21, 2015, 03:57:53 PM »

irifleo - video footage shows +williamson clearly consecrated by two bishops(both prelates placed two hands on his head), and the sspv cspv conditionally confirmed someone confirmed by +Williamson. I emailed the cspv about there +williamson position, and they have not responded. There are implications. A priest can validly confirm(it can be supplied). And, we have the video. So, they don't think +williamson is a priest or a bishop.

LucasL · « **Reply #13 on:** October 21, 2015, 04:04:24 PM »

I'm very confused

Please follow me and correct me
So Is there to kinds of objections on +Lefebvre

1) Focus on the person who consecrated +Lefebvre (
http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/validity_of_holy_orders.htm

2) I still don't understand what is the second objection regarding +Bernard Fellay, +Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, +Richard Williamson and +Alfonso de Galarreta.

I'll try to post objetcions to both as soon as I understand what's the second position.

P.S: 11:48 +Lefebvre with both hands on +Williamson

PG · « **Reply #14 on:** October 21, 2015, 06:07:29 PM »

Ladislaus - I withdraw my thanks. And, it is no surprise to me that you do not want to talk about the real issue with your linked article. The real issue is that fr. cekada has pulled that article from the web. And, he has no doubt done that because his article spreads "extremely vile"(to use your own words about cekada) "rumors" about a catholic bishop. But, that doesn't stop you; here you are promoting the lie. Take note irirfleo.