Fr. Cekada Promotes His Book With a 14-Video Series
14 part video series? I only see two parts. Thanks
Is he in good standing with the Church?I disagree that it destroys Catholic doctrine in the minds of the faithful. If it was used in the right way, combined with a bad priest, then yes. I have seen good priests use the NO the best they can and Catholic doctrine has been maintained.
Alan, Apparently he has only posted two so far, but in the first video he mentions that there are 14. So he is probably posting them as he makes them.
ToS,No, he is a sedevacantist. But, as I argue in my book review (which I have submitted to Divinitas), his argument regarding the NO Mass is independent of his Sedevacantism. That is, Sedevacantism is noy a premise in his argument, and, thus, it can be appreciated by Catholics in "good standing."I think that one can safely say that the NO Mass *does* "destroy Catholic doctrine in the minds of the faithful," but not in the exact same sense in which Fr. Cekada means it. He thinks that this is so because he claims there are heresies in the New Mass, but, in my opinion he fails to demonstrate that this is the case. Rather, I think that the NO Mass (and GIRM) do this because (1) they fail to profess the faith in some key doctrines, such as the nature of the Catholic (ministerial) Priesthood, the Sacrifucial nature of the Mass, and the Real Presence, and (2) because they contain elements (both actions and words) that, though in themselves not heretical, in historical context can--and are commonly--interpreted in heretical ways (and Cekada offers evidence that this was done deliberately by the reformers), such as the orientation of the priest, Communion in the hand and the way the Blessed Sacrament is handled in general, the naturalism in the offertory prayers, the 'meal' language, etc.So, in my view, the problem is not that that the New Mass explicitly denies a dogma of faith (as Father claims), but rather, that it (1) does not express what it should express, and (2) it employs elements that positively destroy Catholic doctrine, not in themselves, but in the minds of today's faithful. Thus, the Mass does not run afoul of disciplinary infallibility (which is, I think, what Fr. Cekada ultimately wants us to accept), but it manages to be compatible with heresy, which is being promoted through omissions of doctrine and through elements in the Mass that are open to a heretical interpretation.
PS. My point with that long comment--which I failed to stress--was that even with a good, reverent priest, the problems with the New Mass (nos. 1 and 2 described above) are elements of the Mass *itself*, and do not depend on the priest's piety. Fr. Cekada's book is very good at showing that some of the problems of the Mass are *in the Missal itself* and do not depend on the priests or on the translations or on anything else.As to the well-intentioned priests that you have witnessed saying the NOM, in using the very Missal of 1970 they are not fully avoiding nos. 1 and 2 above. Perhaps they are doing the best they can, but they are using a Missal that, in some significant ways, betrays their good intentions.
I think I agree with everything you said except:(2) it employs elements that positively destroy Catholic doctrine, not in themselves, but in the minds of today's faithful.I thought that it was impossible for the Church to approve of something on this level that is positively harmful?
Is he still a sedevacantist? We need holy priests inside the Church to criticise the New Rite. Many already do so, but the more the merrier!
Dr. Romero,My experience is that most people try to find something heretical in the Novus Ordo rite and if they don't find it or agree that any exists, then they automatically conclude that it is acceptable. I take a different approach. Evil is defined as the privation of a due good. Now the rite of the Traditional Mass clearly expressed the dogmas of the Faith. This was a good of that rite. This clear expression was removed and/or hindered in the Novus Ordo rite. Therefore, the good which is due to the rite is no longer there or has been significantly subverted. Hence, the new rite is evil.
Don Paco,Please recall that Pope Gregory XVI teaches in "Mirari Vos" as follows:"...the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be . . . called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." (par. 9; 1832)It seems to me that you are arguing that the New Mass is harmful to the Faith and the faithful only *per accidens* - am I understanding you right? Yet, you concede that the problems are *positive* and contained *in the Novus Ordo Missal itself.*Are you saying, then, that the entire Church apostatized "by accident"? We all know that the most immediate cause of the apostasy is traced back to the New Mass, for most Catholics never read Vatican II nor the local catechism of their diocese.Also, consider what you are saying about Holy Mother Church when you state that she can promulgate and impose as a universal rite a "Mass" that "does not express what it should express" and "employs elements that positively destroy Catholic doctrine, not in themselves, but in the minds of today's faithful."You call such a church protected by the Holy Ghost? The Spotless Bride of Christ? Pope Pius VI, in 1794, had the following to say about omitting even so much as the TERM "transubstantiation" when giving an otherwise perfectly-orthodox explanation of this mystery. He warned that "by an indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort, knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely scholastic question, --dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics" (Denzinger no. 1529). Let us take heed lest we succumb to the temptation to begin with a desired conclusion and then do all we can to find premises that lead to this conclusion. To find the truth, we must allow the premises to dictate the conclusion.
No, I am not saying that, M.T. Chair.
Anthony, I agree that absence of heresy is not a sufficient condition for a rite to be acceptable. I don't think the NO Mass is heretical, and yet I avoid it like the plague.
ToS, I say that, not from a priori expectations of what the church can or cannot approve, but from the a posteriori experience of elements in the NO Mass that are positively misleading, ***given the errors of our time.*** For example, speaking of the Mass as a "meal" (as vs. a sacrifice) is not, pace Cekada, heretical (cf., "O sacrum convivium"), since it is an apt metaphor to describe at least poetically some aspects of the Mass. But in the new Mass, and especially the GIRM, there is an overemphasis on this metaphor, to the point that it becomes the paradigm for understanding the Mass, and this was done purposely by the reformers in order to cater to modernist theological trends and ecumanical interests.This all means that the problem is not with the element inquestion, taken in itself, but with how it affects the faithful of today. That is, these elements positively destroy the faith, not because they are in themselves erroneous, but because in such large doses and without the more exact, less metaphorical expressions to moderate them, they seem to favor, at least in the modern mind, a heretical understanding of the Mass.I believe that these elements which, taken in context, corrupt the faith, were put there strategically by thereformers, who were shrewd enough to know they'd have too hard a time getting heresies under the radar. Instead, they cleverly employed the "ressourcement" technique of their "nouvelle theologie": they used their archeological erudition to put together an ecclectic aggregate or collage of all the legitimate liturgical practices and texts (and made up others, not so legitimate) that favored their heretical views.
"the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be . . . called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority."M.T., what you fail to understand is that the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae was not an act of the Church. It was the act of a man (Giovanni Montini) who had no authority to do what he did on the behalf of the Church any more that Joseph Ratzinger did at Assisi III. These men were not acting as Vicars of Christ, but of anti-christ.
"I believe that these elements which, taken in context, corrupt the faith, were put there strategically by thereformers, who were shrewd enough to know they'd have too hard a time getting heresies under the radar. Instead, they cleverly employed the "ressourcement" technique of their "nouvelle theologie": they used their archeological erudition to put together an ecclectic aggregate or collage of all the legitimate liturgical practices and texts (and made up others, not so legitimate) that favored their heretical views."Dr. Romero, this is an excellent point. Once one comes to understand this, I don't see how they could possibly ever assist at the New Mass again!
"But, as I argue in my book review (which I have submitted to Divinitas)"I am interested in reading this review, would you care to post it here?Thanks,Matt
Sorry, Matt, I can't post the review here, as it may (hopefully) endup published in Divinitas, or elsewhere. But there are plenty of good reviews available, many by scholars far more eminent than this humble student of theology.For example:http://www.doctrinaliturgica.com/2011/07/missal-translation-director-praises-cekadas-book-on-the-mass-of-paul-vi/http://www.doctrinaliturgica.com/2010/11/dr-hull-on-whh-well-documented-original-and-worthy-of-attention/
No one has yet to be able to show me (in English) the conditions necessary for the pope to be infallible in discplinary decisions.
Anthony, here's a start:http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/02/disciplinary-infallibility-of-church.html
Don Paco,The Church cannot give evil. By definition, evil is a privation of good, the lack of a good that ought to be there. Considering this, I don't see how arguing that the New Mass's evil consists in a lack of what ought to be there, is helping your case.
Br. Anthony,You stated: "M.T., what you fail to understand is that the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae was not an act of the Church."I totally agree with that, but that's because I am a sedevacantist ("M.T. Chair" = "Empty Chair").Since you, presumably, are not a sedevacantist, I don't know how you can argue that the New Mass was not an act of your church or your pope. After all, the "Apostolic Constitution" ordering its use concludes with these words:"We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent. We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation."(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html)Clearly, the legislator has spoken.
M.T.,It is called "an abuse of legitimate authority".Pope Paul VI had no more authority to promulgate a Protestant liturgical rite than you do to declare that he was not pope.
Post a Comment