OPEN LETTER TO FR. ANTHONY CEKADA


Reverend Father,

One of my lost sheep is Japanese, totally away from the sacraments, not just because of sedevacantism, but because of the side-effects thereof, because he now questions the validity of the 1967 ordination of Fr. Nariai, our local priest, typical of a disciple of yours.

Other sheep got entangled in the concept that nothing is left valid in the Catholic Church; better stay at home with a rosary and an act of contrition.

In this current and confused situation of the Church, sedevacantism only adds to the confusion and scattering of sheep, which fall off the cliff for one false reasoning, for the omission of one theological distinction, or for the extrapolation of one text over the others.

So I will not lead my sheep on that stray path and its not it’s many antinomies, while it would have been so much safer to tell the faithful just to stay away from heretics and have nothing to do with the new Rome, as it becomes less and less comparable with the one it supplanted in Vatican II. I will just cover two blatant antinomies, for the time.

1)   First Antinomy: Fatima Is Just Edifying.

For a sedevacantist, Fatima doesn’t fit, because the Fatima solution is at the hand of a Pope performing a request from Heaven. It does not suffice to say that Fatima is private revelation to brush it under the carpet of pious things, because this type of revelations is publicly approved by the Church (Lourdes and Fatima),  are confirmed publicly by many miracles (Lourdes and Rue du vac), especially Fatima with this outstanding public miracle before 70,000 witnesses, red aurora etc. These special revelations, are also tied to important public events like the advent of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (Quito), the revolution of 1830 (Rue du vac), the war of 1870 (Pontmain) and of course WWI, WWII, WWIII and Communism (Fatima). They are indeed related to dogmatic affairs, like the “que soy era la Immaculata Conceptiou” in 1858 and that includes ecclesiology (Quito, La Salette) and the Papacy. Note that the really private revelation of Dom Bosco confirms the role of a Roman Pontiff after some wobbly moments! In Fatima, the Papacy plays the greatest role, with the poor Sister Lucy trying to persuade John XXIII, Paul VI and John-Paul II in vain. Cardinal Ratzinger literally buried the message in 2000 and Francis mocked it in 2012. It’s the Novus Ordo who don’t want the truth of Fatima to go public all the while Fatima occurs amidst three chastisements of humanity. So, no, Reverend Father, there is nothing merely edifying about this.

What is wonderful in Fatima is that it concerns the fate of nations, the fate of the Papacy and the dogma of the faith. When it is edifying, it is terribly so, like the vision of hell by the three children.

Therefore I think you are throwing discredit on your position by this video on You Tube, downplaying and cutting off Fatima from ecclesiology. Fatima is rejected by the new church because it doesn’t fit their ecclesiology, isn’t it? It goes straight against “Dignitatis Humanae” by requesting a Nation-State to be Consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, exposing our present day Popes as bad ones in the process, which of course, you don’t find interesting, since, in your ecclesiology there is no more shepherd while in fact the shepherd has been struck.

(To be continued).

fc+

. . . while it would have been so much safer to tell the faithful just to stay away from heretics and have nothing to do with the new Rome . . .

. . . exposing our present day Popes as bad ones in the process, which of course, you don’t find interesting, since, in your ecclesiology there is no more shepherd while in fact the shepherd has been struck.

This seems to me to be a contradiction. How can a Catholic priest say, "have nothing to do with the Pope"? (which is what he is essentially saying when he implies that Francis is the pope and to have nothing to do with "new Rome").

You can't decry sedevacantists for abandoning the shepherd that has been struck, because that's essentially what the Novus Ordites say about traditionalists in general, viz. that they abandon the shepherd.

Other sheep got entangled in the concept that nothing is left valid in the Catholic Church; better stay at home with a rosary and an act of contrition.

The irony is that most home-aloners I have come across recently are not sedevacantist but Resistance Red Lighters.  

OPEN LETTER TO FR. ANTHONY CEKADA


Reverend Father,

One of my lost sheep is Japanese, totally away from the sacraments, not just because of sedevacantism, but because of the side-effects thereof, because he now questions the validity of the 1967 ordination of Fr. Nariai, our local priest, typical of a disciple of yours.

Other sheep got entangled in the concept that nothing is left valid in the Catholic Church; better stay at home with a rosary and an act of contrition.

In this current and confused situation of the Church, sedevacantism only adds to the confusion and scattering of sheep, which fall off the cliff for one false reasoning, for the omission of one theological distinction, or for the extrapolation of one text over the others.

So I will not lead my sheep on that stray path and its not it’s many antinomies, while it would have been so much safer to tell the faithful just to stay away from heretics and have nothing to do with the new Rome, as it becomes less and less comparable with the one it supplanted in Vatican II. I will just cover two blatant antinomies, for the time.

1)   First Antinomy: Fatima Is Just Edifying.

For a sedevacantist, Fatima doesn’t fit, because the Fatima solution is at the hand of a Pope performing a request from Heaven. It does not suffice to say that Fatima is private revelation to brush it under the carpet of pious things, because this type of revelations is publicly approved by the Church (Lourdes and Fatima),  are confirmed publicly by many miracles (Lourdes and Rue du vac), especially Fatima with this outstanding public miracle before 70,000 witnesses, red aurora etc. These special revelations, are also tied to important public events like the advent of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (Quito), the revolution of 1830 (Rue du vac), the war of 1870 (Pontmain) and of course WWI, WWII, WWIII and Communism (Fatima). They are indeed related to dogmatic affairs, like the “que soy era la Immaculata Conceptiou” in 1858 and that includes ecclesiology (Quito, La Salette) and the Papacy. Note that the really private revelation of Dom Bosco confirms the role of a Roman Pontiff after some wobbly moments! In Fatima, the Papacy plays the greatest role, with the poor Sister Lucy trying to persuade John XXIII, Paul VI and John-Paul II in vain. Cardinal Ratzinger literally buried the message in 2000 and Francis mocked it in 2012. It’s the Novus Ordo who don’t want the truth of Fatima to go public all the while Fatima occurs amidst three chastisements of humanity. So, no, Reverend Father, there is nothing merely edifying about this.

What is wonderful in Fatima is that it concerns the fate of nations, the fate of the Papacy and the dogma of the faith. When it is edifying, it is terribly so, like the vision of hell by the three children.

Therefore I think you are throwing discredit on your position by this video on You Tube, downplaying and cutting off Fatima from ecclesiology. Fatima is rejected by the new church because it doesn’t fit their ecclesiology, isn’t it? It goes straight against “Dignitatis Humanae” by requesting a Nation-State to be Consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, exposing our present day Popes as bad ones in the process, which of course, you don’t find interesting, since, in your ecclesiology there is no more shepherd while in fact the shepherd has been struck.

(To be continued).

fc+

“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church....”

~Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976

So Father, for the sake of your interpretation of Fatima, you're proposing that we ignore both Archbishop Lefebvre and St. Paul (Galations 1:8) and pledge our fealty to:

   - A Manifest Heretic, head of a Schismatic and Heretical Church with:
       - its new dogmas
       - its new priesthood
       - its new institutions
       - its new worship
   - not to mention:
       - its new catechism
       - its new canon law
       - its new "saints"

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. ~Gal. 1:8

Quote from: chrstnoel1

Other sheep got entangled in the concept that nothing is left valid in the Catholic Church; better stay at home with a rosary and an act of contrition.

The irony is that most home-aloners I have come across recently are not sedevacantist but Resistance Red Lighters.  

That is not a fair statement. I have seen the Resistance priests go out of their way to visit every single soul that asks for them. They may not be able to visit often, but they do visit them. Are those people you came across really 'home-aloners' or are they just people that red-light the SSPX and only see a Resistance priest very occasionally ?

Fr Chazal is talking about people refusing a Traditional priest because one has not been personally convinced that their consecration was done correctly. This attitude leads to a 'Dimond brothers' attitude, where everyone and everything is to be faulted and considered as outside of the Church, except oneself.

To red-light the SSPX because of it's modernism, abuses and determination to lead souls back to apostate Rome is a very different thing than red-lighting every Traditional priest because one has not been able to personally verify their ordination.

Try and understand Fr Chazal before throwing stones at him.

So now Fr 'Red Light' Chazal is publically chastising Fr 'Una cuм' Cekada for keeping faithful from accessing the sacraments??!? Maybe just for fun, Fr Cekada can now castigate Fr Chazal for his leaving the SSPX and his lack of obedience to his superior...

Stories like this would make for great episodes of the Twilight Zone!!

So now Fr 'Red Light' Chazal is publically chastising Fr 'Una cuм' Cekada for keeping faithful from accessing the sacraments??!? Maybe just for fun, Fr Cekada can now castigate Fr Chazal for his leaving the SSPX and his lack of obedience to his superior...

Stories like this would make for great episodes of the Twilight Zone!!

No, Fr Chazal is telling Fr Cekada that the extreme position he is advocating is causing some of the souls in his care to throw the baby out with the bathwater and to put their own soul in danger by going on a spiritual hunger strike, and by possibly even separating themselves from the Church.

Your 'fun' suggestion is dealing with a complete different issue, ie legitimate disobedience to a command that is contrary and harmful to the Faith.

Fr Chazal's letter was prompted by a genuine concern for souls in his care. Your idea of 'fun' does not benefit anyone, and neither does the endless criticism aimed at people you have decided are not 'with' you in everything.

Quote from: Luker

So now Fr 'Red Light' Chazal is publically chastising Fr 'Una cuм' Cekada for keeping faithful from accessing the sacraments??!? Maybe just for fun, Fr Cekada can now castigate Fr Chazal for his leaving the SSPX and his lack of obedience to his superior...

Stories like this would make for great episodes of the Twilight Zone!!

No, Fr Chazal is telling Fr Cekada that the extreme position he is advocating is causing some of the souls in his care to throw the baby out with the bathwater and to put their own soul in danger by going on a spiritual hunger strike, and by possibly even separating themselves from the Church.

Your 'fun' suggestion is dealing with a complete different issue, ie legitimate disobedience to a command that is contrary and harmful to the Faith.

Fr Chazal's letter was prompted by a genuine concern for souls in his care. Your idea of 'fun' does not benefit anyone, and neither does the endless criticism aimed at people you have decided are not 'with' you in everything.

So, could you tell us exactly what is  Luker's position? Who has he decided is against him?

I just want to have this clarified because I'm trying to figure out why you are saying this.