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
> circuмstances 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

When the Siri people can explain to me how a "captive" Pope can make his own College of Cardinals while being under constant death threats and surveillance, then I will listen to them with more attention.

When the Siri people can explain to me how a "captive" Pope can make his own College of Cardinals while being under constant death threats and surveillance, then I will listen to them with more attention.

To help clarify this, just so you realize, the conclave that was setup when Gregory XVII died, was publicly announced. Gregory XVII appointed cardinals before his death, and no doubt, they elected someone.

That is, if it happened this way. I'm still looking into it, but there's no illogic to it.

Even if there were only one Catholic left in the entire world, the Church would still be here. Who cares if there are very few numbers? That argument has never held water. Are we to believe the obvious predicted apostasy of the lolvatican? Or are we to believe that somehow, Christ was able to preserve the line of succession through this means?

To discount it would be folly to me, hence, the reason I'm seriously looking into it.

If I find it to be bogus, I'm going to pass it all over the place saying it's not true. If it turns out to be correct, you can bet there will be a force larger than newvatican can deal with, and it will fall like a house of cards.

But to just "I'm not buying it" is really irresponsible. At least to say, "I don't know" would be better. An informed conscience is the correct way, not a willfully ignorant one.

I just know what my grandparents and great-grandparents were Catholic for. I'm sure that generation before couldn't even name the pope, but still had the Faith.

Right now, it matters to keep the tenants of the Catholic Faith until this MESS can be sorted out. The pope issue is a strawman argument, and only meant to create arguments and dissension.

Think about it. Firstly, these "lolpopes" have been unable to decree anything that would come from the Mouth of the Holy Ghost: Nothing Ex Cathedra. NOTHING.

So what exactly, in the last 60 years, is the difference between when Pius XII was pope, and now, according to the Faith? NOTHING. The Catholics have remained Catholic, and the rest have followed the Emperor with No Clothes (faith).

If the Holy Ghost is really working through Ratzinger, have him try to DARE to say anything Ex Cathedra, that I am forced to believe... I think he'd be struck by lightning on a clear day first.

Really, I think those who are trying to INFORM their consciences, and HAVE informed their consciences to the best of their ability are fine. God WILL take that into account on judgment day, and we have that liberty. If we inform our consciences, God judges us BASED ON THAT. I will listen to what others have to say as to further inform my conscience, but to blindly follow Ratzinger along, when my conscience tells me he's not even a BISHOP much less the Pope, is NOT acting with an informed conscience.

Looking into the Gregory XVII argument, however, IS informing my conscience, because, tell me, anyone here, do you REALLY know what happened at that conclave in 1958? Do you have hard evidence that he did not accept, or just the words of someone else?

This is one of my pet peeves. People given evidence on a subject, (and sometimes it's PICTORAL evidence, with no shred of doubt) and they discount it saying "I don't buy it" when it doesn't fit in with their comfortable theory.

I'm WILLING TO LISTEN, and accept Truth, but nothing less than the truth. I will hear theories, and ideas, as to how we got into this mess in the first place, but personal attacks are just stupid, and spewing lies and things that can't be proven are even more stupid.

When I say I'm looking into the Gregory XVII theory, I'm actually doing it. I didn't say I subscribed to it, however, it is compelling, and there is enough evidence IMO to say that it's probably true. But am I going to try to force everyone to conform to it? No, but I will tell you that you SHOULD be looking into it YOURSELF!

The "election" of "fat John XXIII" is by no means, ironclad, nor is his validity, according to many sources that say he wasn't the Pope, or that he wasn't validly elected, and this is coming from "cardinals."

Same with Paul VI. There were lots of things being said by vatican people. Not to mention that already in 1950, Bella Dodd said that the communists were already in the highest places in the Vatican!

If anyone says, "I know for an absolute fact that Ratzinger is the Pope," they're seriously KIDDING themselves, because so far, if anyone knows, the number is very small. No one is really for sure on it, and God will be our judge by our consciences.

As Thomas More said during the uncertainty in his time, in his country, "I am the King's loyal servant, but God's first."

That should be everyone's credo.

parentsfortruth, I am a staunch sedevacantist -- you don't have to tell me that the last five Popes were not Popes.  I know that just like I know my eyes are brown.

I believe the next Pope, if there is to be one, will be elected from the Thuc or Lefebvre lineage.  Though I am against SSPX I am not one of those who say Lefebvre's ordination or consecration were invalid.

One priest told me that Lefebvre's ordination was invalid because he was ordained by Achille Lienart.  Well, if that were true, then his consecration MADE his ordination valid anyway, because if you are raised to bishop you are automatically a priest as well, I believe.  

And if the matter and form of ordination were observed, even by Lienart, he was a priest.  Again this is where God supplies necessary grace.  Can you imagine how many thousands or millions have been baptized or absolved in the confessional or married or given extreme unction by Freemasons over the last couple centuries?  Do you think God has just abandoned them?  I doubt it.

They have valid orders at the SSPX for sure.  It is not even necessarily heresy to say "una cuм" but I do feel it is displeasing to God, just through common sense, the way I know that plastic surgery is displeasing to God even though there's nothing against it in the catechism.  I don't see how God can enjoy prayers for an anti-christ during a Mass where His Son is offered as an unbloody sacrifice.  

But if the orders are invalid, then my friend Monsieur L'Abbe Xavier Grossin of Brittany France is not a real priest, and neither is Father Trytek of Poland.  They were both priests at SSPX who left.  Abbe Grossin is a genius, I'm telling you, this guy knows everything, he is as close to truth incarnate as we have on this Earth.   Of course this isn't proof his orders are valid, but for that, refer to my first paragraph.

We see eye to eye on most everything, Parentsfortruth.

Is that the one headed by Bishop Neville?  

Never heard of Bishop Neville.

The priest here doesn't tell us where he gets his chrism from. That's his business, and I trust his judgment.

He's an independent priest, was one of the first SSPX priests that I know of, but left in 1989, not because of the consecrations, but for some other reason. I can never remember why, but from what I remember, it was a very good reason.