Interview with Bp Dolan and Fr Cekada

[SCG]

I didn't think we were supposed to link to sede sites here.

The OP is the publisher of Bishop Williamson's books, as well as His Lordship's "blogmaster". His site doesn't qualify as a "sede site".
And Fr. Cekada is a member of this Forum.

I made no mention of Bp Williamson's books or blog. And Fr. Cekada (as far as I know) respects the rules when he's on this forum. The OP is linking to a site with an interview in which Pope Benedict is called "an antichrist."

[incrucetrad]

I don't believe it is a good idea to have links to sede sites or to promote dialogues between a blatantly sede [Edit by Quis - remove discussion of sedevacantism] Bishop" and another sede priest. These people [Edit by Quis - remove discussion of sedevacantism] should not be part of our forum. I thought this was clearly stated in the forum rules, but perhaps I am mistaken.  This sort of thing can be confusing to real Catholics.

[Historian]

I don't believe it is a good idea to have links to sede sites or to promote dialogues between a blatantly sede and questionable "Thuc line Bishop" and another sede priest. These people are clearly schismatic, and should not be part of our forum. I thought this was clearly stated in the forum rules, but perhaps I am mistaken. This sort of thing can be confusing to real Catholics.

Anyone who follows the rules can be part of the forum. The person in the interview, who is a member of this site, does not break the rules of this site.
I do think it is inappropriate to link to it though; Fr Cekada is being discussed here and he cannot join in without breaking the rules.

[Historian]

I don't have a problem linking to the interview.  It's just an interview.

However, it is a good point that Father would not be able to defend himself on the sedevacantism topic here, and that's a bit unfair.  Also, we're not supposed to discuss sedevacantism either pro or con.

So, the best I can come up with is this:

I'm going to edit the posts that discuss sedevacantism.  The other comments and the link to the article can remain.

That's the best I can do.
EDIT to add:  While I don't agree with statements in the interview, I don't agree with statements in other news things posted like where Atheists say bad things or Jews or even Novus Ordo Catholics.  An interview is just that: an interview.  So, certain things slide in the way of news.

[Historian]

I obviously don't agree with some of the article's sentiments, but I did find the discussion of "1950s Catholicism" quite interesting.  If the parish priest directing traffic and no sermons was typical of the time, then I can see why many wanted the NO.

It also sheds light on why the Popes of the 20th century pushed for liturgical reform.  Obviously, something needed to be done.

[incrucetrad]

I have a problem with the fact that the moderator edited out part of my post referring to the authenticity of "Bishop" Dolan who may in fact not be a bishop at all. Clearly he is a priest, but his bishopness is definitely in question and that should be made clear to all on this forum so as to not be confused.

[Historian]

I have a problem with the fact that the moderator edited out part of my post referring to the authenticity of "Bishop" Dolan who may in fact not be a bishop at all. Clearly he is a priest, but his bishopness is definitely in question and that should be made clear to all on this forum so as to not be confused.

Not really.  Those arguments rest on a faulty understanding of sacramental theology.  In my experience, the argument centers on the fact that Archbishop Thuc did not possess the cognitive abilities to ordain bishops, and therefore could have a defective intent.  Those who make the argument do not understand that for validity, the Church requires very little in regards to intent (the bishop basically just has to intend to seriously carry out a rite of the Church).  Also, validity is presumed unless the bishop says something that would make you question his intent (e.g. "I do not really intend to ordain bishops today"). 

If the Church judged validity on interior mental capabilities, it would be absolutely impossible to determine if ANY sacrament was valid.  "Old Fr. O'Malley is really going down hill.  I heard he got lost in town the other day.  Is his Mass still valid?" Imagine the distress that would cause the faithful if they never has definitive knowledge if their sacrament was valid, because they didn't know the priest's mental capabilities?  Fortunately, the Church doesn't require an IQ test for validity.

For Bishop Thuc to ordain validity, he basically had to intend the perform the Rite of Ordination.  The fact that he dressed for Mass, followed the ceremonies of the Rite of Consecration, and even signed forms with witnesses attesting to performing the consecrations, would be enough to morally satisfy condidtions for validity.  (Of course the Sacraments would still be illegal, canonically).

I'm not a sede, but I do realize that valid Sacraments can exist outside the bounds of the Church.  Even the authorities in Rome have recognized the validity of the Thuc-line.  When Cardinal Ratzinger issues a public excommunication against the consecrated, that's a good sign that the Holy See recognizes validity.

Also, I think the moderators edit your posts to maintain civility on the forum.  They do not tolerate sedevacantists speaking of modern bishops with quotes.  In fact, that's part of the reason sedevacantism isn't discussed here.  You'll have someone post an article about a bishop participating in scandal, and then the sedevacantist will say something like: "Well what else do you expect from this 'bishop'."  Then a sede will post an article, and the other crowd would do the same.  Thus, instead of a discussion, you get arguing, and the topic gets locked.  All because someone needed to add quotation marks to their sentence...

[MitOS]

Oh I think I have heard of a Fr Cekada.

Isn't he the Priest that says the method of death of Terri Schivo is WITHIN Catholic doctrine???????

[neel]

Oh I think I have heard of a Fr Cekada.

Isn't he the Priest that says the method of death of Terri Schivo is WITHIN Catholic doctrine???????

You could be a little more polite.  He's a member of this forum.  And an excellent priest.

[MitOS]

"You could be a little more polite.  He's a member of this forum.  And an excellent priest.
"

 

How in Sam Hill do you find my post failing to be polite?

 

The only possible way you could come to that conclusion is if my question reflects a falsehood.  If you wish to make the claim he is not that Fr Cekada please do so and this Fr Cekada is not the Priest who publicly justified the termination of Terri Schivo's life that I look forward to being corrected. 

 

I do not reject the possibility there is more than one Priest in the world with the name Cekada just as there is more than one person in the world today who shares my full name.  Do a goggle of your own name and most likely you too will see the point I am making.

 

Since it is possible I want to know the character of one of the men that is the subject of this thread.

 

So make your case.

 

Otherwise you are the one being impolite

AND an enemy of truth,

AND one who prefers suppression of the truth over hearing it.

 

Make your case.