Author Topic: Radio talk with Fr. Cekada this Sunday (Read 6653 times)

Wessex · « **on:** April 14, 2012, 02:35:22 PM »

.

Saturday 14, April 2012
SSPX-Rome Deal in Works? Radio Interview with Fr. Cekada

The historic April 15th deadline for the SSPX to make an agreement with Benedict XVI has arrived.

What will SSPX head Bp. Bernard Fellay do?

A former SSPX priest, Fr. Anthony Cekada, will join Restoration Radio to talk about this event and similar situations in SSPX in 1983, 1988, 2000, and 2007.

Date: Sunday, April 15, 2012
Time: 2:30 PM EST, 1:30 PM CST, 19:30 GMT
Link: Restoration Radio
The show will run approximately one hour and we will start taking calls at the halfway mark. Call in to speak with the host

(949) 272-9417
This month's show is hosted by Stephen Heiner of True Restoration and Nicholas Wansbutter of Swords and Space.

=

John Grace · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2012, 01:38:16 PM »

I'm currently listening to it.

John Grace · « **Reply #2 on:** April 15, 2012, 02:03:46 PM »

Excellent interview so far.It's possible to phone in now.Fr Cekada is making plenty of sense.

John Grace · « **Reply #3 on:** April 15, 2012, 02:32:08 PM »

I enjoyed the part where Max Krah is mentioned. :applause:

SJB · « **Reply #4 on:** April 15, 2012, 10:08:02 PM »

I think Fr. Cekada very carefully misrepresents the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, especially in that of true and false obedience, and the attachment to Antiquity, which cannot be anymore seduced by deceptive novelty. I just reread Lefebvre's Open Letter to Confused Catholics (1986) where this is very clearly discussed.

Fr. Cekada's "apostolate" has become merely an opposition to the SSPX.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #5 on:** April 15, 2012, 10:20:04 PM »

Quote from: SJB

I think Fr. Cekada very carefully misrepresents the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, especially in that of true and false obedience, and the attachment to Antiquity, which cannot be anymore seduced by deceptive novelty. I just reread Lefebvre's Open Letter to Confused Catholics (1986) where this is very clearly discussed.

Fr. Cekada's "apostolate" has become merely an opposition to the SSPX.

I listened to Father Cekada on the radio show, for about 20-30 minutes, and I agree that he misrepresented the position of Archbishop LeFevre. He made it sound like the Archbishop caved in to Rome, and also falsely said that ABL had been in negotiation attempts with Rome. ABL stated very clearly in his writings that his intent was to convert Rome, and that no reconciliation would ever be reached until they converted first.

John Grace · « **Reply #6 on:** April 16, 2012, 05:09:25 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: SJB
I think Fr. Cekada very carefully misrepresents the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, especially in that of true and false obedience, and the attachment to Antiquity, which cannot be anymore seduced by deceptive novelty. I just reread Lefebvre's Open Letter to Confused Catholics (1986) where this is very clearly discussed.

Fr. Cekada's "apostolate" has become merely an opposition to the SSPX.

I listened to Father Cekada on the radio show, for about 20-30 minutes, and I agree that he misrepresented the position of Archbishop LeFevre. He made it sound like the Archbishop caved in to Rome, and also falsely said that ABL had been in negotiation attempts with Rome. ABL stated very clearly in his writings that his intent was to convert Rome, and that no reconciliation would ever be reached until they converted first.

It was an excellent interview and I think Fr Cekada is correct to a degree about the SSPX. I don't regard the the Novus Ordo as valid.

I thought this a good exchange over on Ignis.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9131

Quote

QUOTE (gregj @ Apr 16 2012, 05:04 AM)
Dedalus,

I'll invest the time in it if and when the advertising or reviews suggest that there will be a return. That isn't happening yet.

You say that those who have studied the matter closely are certain that there is already a (secret) deal; then you say that Fr. Cekada says that there won't be a deal. Hence his view is a revelation.

Is Fr. Cekada not in the category of those who have studied the matter closely and therefore believe there is a done deal? What are you really saying? That most of those who have studied the matter closely have come to the wrong conclusion? Or that Fr. Cekada is worth listening to despite the fact that he hasn't studied the matter closely? Or merely that his view is singular and therefore interesting for that reason?

Give us something cogent, please. What does Fr. Cekada have to offer that is worth listening to?

PS Factual nonsense: "everyone thinks that there will be a deal." No, the only people I have found who think that there will be a deal are Indult types and ignorant or malicious sedes, both of whom seem to be allowing their desires to replace calm observation and reasoning.

Gregj

You're not someone interested in discussion on this matter. You've already made up your mind and don't want to be confused with facts.

We'll revisit this in a few weeks when news breaks, one way or the other. I think for now, we're probably at an impasse, because you know everything.

I don't really see a schism in the SSPX if there is a 'sell out'. If they believe Benedict XVI is Pope, they are obliged to follow him. Father is correct on that.

There is no doubt Bishop Fellay has been preparing the way and the faithful for a deal for many years.

John Grace · « **Reply #7 on:** April 16, 2012, 05:16:21 AM »

Quote

Fr. Cekada's "apostolate" has become merely an opposition to the SSPX.

I disagree. In Ireland there is a small sede presence. Mainly visiting priests for those who no longer support the SSPX. I have not involved myself in this apostolate but friends attend and they don't see themselves as opposition. Whilst I support the SSPX, I welcome independent sede or non sede apostolates once the priests are validly ordained.

One visiting priest said 'lefebvreism' is the worst 'ism'. I disagree as the SSPX have some decent and holy priests.

The SSPX priests in Ireland are well aware of the visiting priests. One was expelled by Bishop Williamson. How ironic as he know serves in England.

I wouldn't see such a priest as "opposition".

Part of the interview discussed Traditional Catholics getting on with each other.

John Grace · « **Reply #8 on:** April 16, 2012, 05:24:46 AM »

Quote from: John Grace

Quote
Fr. Cekada's "apostolate" has become merely an opposition to the SSPX.

I disagree. In Ireland there is a small sede presence. Mainly visiting priests for those who no longer support the SSPX. I have not involved myself in this apostolate but friends attend and they don't see themselves as opposition. Whilst I support the SSPX, I welcome independent sede or non sede apostolates once the priests are validly ordained.

One visiting priest said 'lefebvreism' is the worst 'ism'. I disagree as the SSPX have some decent and holy priests.

The SSPX priests in Ireland are well aware of the visiting priests. One was expelled by Bishop Williamson. How ironic as he know serves in England.

I wouldn't see such a priest as "opposition".

Part of the interview discussed Traditional Catholics getting on with each other.

In Ireland the Society lost support and many who attend Institute Christ the King are ex SSPX so 'wicked sede' as Fr A Portugal called them can't be blamed. I thought his comment to be rather counter productive and self defeating.Particularly when Econe was openly sede and priests like then Fr Fellay turned Archbishop Lefebvre against many good priests.

Wessex · « **Reply #9 on:** April 16, 2012, 06:23:53 AM »

One can get a bit long in the tooth to be upset by young priests with closed minds. It seems all these priests can say is because of a state of necessity their particular independence from Rome is better than others. ABL's decision to differentiate and now Bp. F's attacking independent priests as though he had perfect credentials was and is a foolish mistake. My family going right back has a history of clerical confrontation! The laity today are better informed ... hopefully.

SJB · « **Reply #10 on:** April 16, 2012, 10:57:13 AM »

Quote from: John Grace

Quote from: John Grace
Quote
Fr. Cekada's "apostolate" has become merely an opposition to the SSPX.

I disagree. In Ireland there is a small sede presence. Mainly visiting priests for those who no longer support the SSPX. I have not involved myself in this apostolate but friends attend and they don't see themselves as opposition. Whilst I support the SSPX, I welcome independent sede or non sede apostolates once the priests are validly ordained.

One visiting priest said 'lefebvreism' is the worst 'ism'. I disagree as the SSPX have some decent and holy priests.

The SSPX priests in Ireland are well aware of the visiting priests. One was expelled by Bishop Williamson. How ironic as he know serves in England.

I wouldn't see such a priest as "opposition".

Part of the interview discussed Traditional Catholics getting on with each other.

In Ireland the Society lost support and many who attend Institute Christ the King are ex SSPX so 'wicked sede' as Fr A Portugal called them can't be blamed. I thought his comment to be rather counter productive and self defeating.Particularly when Econe was openly sede and priests like then Fr Fellay turned Archbishop Lefebvre against many good priests.

I think you give a good example of my point.

Quote

One visiting priest said 'lefebvreism' is the worst 'ism'.

Even worse than modernism? If he was only coming to bring the sacraments, why make this type of comment? I agree that some SSPX priests make similar comments, equally damaging and divisive.

As far as Fr. Cekada's "apostolate" goes, my comments were to highlight the fact that his main concern is distancing himself from other Traditional Catholics. I believe this is done to divert from the fact of his failure in the areas where SSPX and CMRI have excelled. What has been accomplished since 1983? Constant fracturing and division is what the record indicates.

John Grace · « **Reply #11 on:** April 16, 2012, 12:08:44 PM »

More than often a Diocesan initiative is deliberate to destroy Tradition. After Summorum Pontificuм, a Latin Mass chaplaincy was set up in Dublin. The parish church chosen caused problems. The people didn't want the Traditional Mass. The previous location used by the Indult community was given to Polish Catholics living in Dublin. The Archbishop of Dublin then appointed the Latin Mass chaplain as Administrator of the parish where the congregation were hostile to a Traditional Mass.

The 'approved' Mass is well attended only when a certain schola are there. It's very much a middle class who attend, and very much a 'smells and bells' affair. There was an article once about how many judges and barristers attend the Traditional Mass in Ireland. No mention of the carpenter and other tradesmen. It's also very elitist and a clique mentality. I have never experienced this in SSPX chapels in Ireland.

The SSPX would face such a scenario if a deal is signed. The Archbishop of Dublin established an Indult Mass to destroy the SSPX and weaken a resistance.

A priest who offers the 'ordinary form' compromises. I'm glad priests are learning to say the Traditional Mass but they must give up the new liturgy and new religion.

A friend of mine once went along to the Latin Mass chaplaincy in hope of getting to Mass. He walked in and the priest was saying the 'ordinary form'. My fiend walked right out and went out to the SSPX chapel in Dublin.

SJB · « **Reply #12 on:** April 16, 2012, 01:28:07 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

More than often a Diocesan initiative is deliberate to destroy Tradition. After Summorum Pontificuм, a Latin Mass chaplaincy was set up in Dublin. The parish church chosen caused problems. The people didn't want the Traditional Mass. The previous location used by the Indult community was given to Polish Catholics living in Dublin. The Archbishop of Dublin then appointed the Latin Mass chaplain as Administrator of the parish where the congregation were hostile to a Traditional Mass.

The 'approved' Mass is well attended only when a certain schola are there. It's very much a middle class who attend, and very much a 'smells and bells' affair. There was an article once about how many judges and barristers attend the Traditional Mass in Ireland. No mention of the carpenter and other tradesmen. It's also very elitist and a clique mentality. I have never experienced this in SSPX chapels in Ireland.

Except don't you think it's a giant leap to say the SSPX will become just "smells and bells?"

The examples you give say the Diocesan "Moto Mass" is an initiative founded in a manner in which no SSPX mass center has ever been founded. That's why you never find it in SSPX chapels.

John Grace · « **Reply #13 on:** April 16, 2012, 02:02:51 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: John Grace
More than often a Diocesan initiative is deliberate to destroy Tradition. After Summorum Pontificuм, a Latin Mass chaplaincy was set up in Dublin. The parish church chosen caused problems. The people didn't want the Traditional Mass. The previous location used by the Indult community was given to Polish Catholics living in Dublin. The Archbishop of Dublin then appointed the Latin Mass chaplain as Administrator of the parish where the congregation were hostile to a Traditional Mass.

The 'approved' Mass is well attended only when a certain schola are there. It's very much a middle class who attend, and very much a 'smells and bells' affair. There was an article once about how many judges and barristers attend the Traditional Mass in Ireland. No mention of the carpenter and other tradesmen. It's also very elitist and a clique mentality. I have never experienced this in SSPX chapels in Ireland.

Except don't you think it's a giant leap to say the SSPX will become just "smells and bells?"

The examples you give say the Diocesan "Moto Mass" is an initiative founded in a manner in which no SSPX mass center has ever been founded. That's why you never find it in SSPX chapels.

I don't believe the SSPX are about smells or bells nor will they become a smells and bells outfit. It would be a tragedy but it won't happen.

I will "stick with" the SSPX.Friends often ask me to attend other 'approved' Masses but I decline. In Ireland many Diocesan priests are 'envious' of the Society set up. We need to 'tradify' them. They have to ask themselves at some point can they continue to compromise?Even decent Catholics who keep a foot in both camps need to be encouraged.Walk away from the Novus Ordo is my advice.

There is a softening in attitude towards the SSPX but hardened 'Indult' types still show venom. They are particularly hostile to Bishop Williamson though in private hold the view that Bishop Tissier is more 'dangerous'. This is the mentality. Bishop Williamson is their object of mockery.

I am always grateful to these Latin Mass Society/Indult types as it was they that brought me to the SSPX.The 1st Mass I attended offered by a Society priest was in a persons home in the late 1990s.

SJB · « **Reply #14 on:** April 16, 2012, 04:43:31 PM »

Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino

Fr. Cekada's apostolate has become merely an opposition to the SSPX?? No, a priest's apostolate is to save souls from error.

Since when has the traditional priest's mission of saving souls required mostly addressing issues that are obscure and difficult to understand? Many of his attempts at "saving souls from error" has been in error themselves.