Post by Pacelli on Dec 29, 2022 12:51:59 GMT -5
In my previous post, linked HERE, I did not yet address the issue of the quote found on page 10 of the Grain of Incense, which I will discuss below.
Here is the section of the letter from my correspondent:
There is so much to say on this quote, but the very first thing to notice is the use of ellipses, which in my opinion, always calls for verifying the complete quote, to make sure the quote is being used in context.
I will now quote Fr. Cekada's entire statement with this quote, to both be fair to him, but also to demonstrate that he did not use this quote in context with what it actually taught. This quote is placed right after his use of a quote from de la Taille, which I will get to in another post.
Footnote 52 from above reads,
On page 15 of "The Grain of Incense," Fr. Cekada makes this assertion in regards to this quote above:
Fortunately, I own the book, as the book is not found on archive.org or any other place online that I am aware. I have found the complete reference, which is nine paragraphs in total, and I was able to analyze it to see if Fr. Cekada's assertion is true. The quote comes from Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, which specifically dealt with the Church in non-Catholic lands, for example lands in which the schismatics controlled everything. Readers can learn more about this HERE.
I placed the entire statement, the full nine paragraphs in the Resource section, in both Latin and English, with direct photos from the book, linked HERE. The statement is very clear in that it is restricting Catholics from attending the rites of schismatics and gives many reasons why, for example, that the living Patriarch is named, that feasts, relics, icons are used of the schismatics, or festivals of those who died in schism, etc.
Almost all of this context is omitted from the section that Fr. Cekada quotes in his essay, and he even asserts that the document doesn't distinguish between declared and undeclared heretics. Since this document is untranslated and is in a large two volume set, all in Latin, on a book not scanned online, probably most either couldn't get to the truth of this assertion, or at a minimum didn't want to put the effort into this. The reader without access to this book, and help to find the quote along with translating it, is completely reliant on Fr. Cekada's assertion of what the document says, as only a small amount was translated by him, along with the fact that only a small broken quote was used (separated by ellipses).
With that said, let's now look at the entire paragraph (par. 4) quoted from Fr. Cekada along with a rough translation provided by Google translate followed by the original Latin for those wanting to perfect the translation, or who know enough Latin to read it:
I realize that the translation above is far from perfect, and in general, I do not like to translate, as my Latin is limited, but I do know enough to follow along in most cases. There is no doubt that when the entire paragraph is read, that this document is dealing with schismatic sects. The Society of the Propagation of the Faith is specifically charged with the Church in non-Catholic lands, so even from the fact that this document came from them, it is obvious that this deals with sects, not undeclared heretics, as they would have been dealt with by either the Inquisition, or later, the Holy Office.
But, beyond that, it should have been obvious to any researcher from this fact of who the document came from, that the document itself makes it clear as to who and what it is addressing: it is dealing with Catholics who wish to attend the rites of schismatic sects and is giving the reasons of why they cannot do so.
Another consideration that should make it obvious to the reader is to ask oneself who are these "Patriarchs and Bishops" that are being spoken of in these non-Catholics lands? The only persons meeting this description at this time period of the document, 1729, were schismatic sects, not undeclared heretics claiming to be Catholics. It's obviously not referring to some eastern Uniate Patriarch or bishop that has fallen into heresy but has not been declared as such. The entire context omitted by Fr. Cekada firmly closes the door to his interpretation.
So what is this about these patriarchs and bishops that are being proclaimed preachers of the Catholic Faith that the document is mentioning? Doesn't that give a possible doorway to interpret this as being undeclared heretics? No, again, when the entire paragraph, especially the entire document is read, it's clear that this is only dealing with sects, who by the way claim to hold and preach the true Faith, pretending that they are the preachers of the Apostolic doctrine, Tradition, and Councils of the first millennium. So, it's obvious that their preaching will very much sound like Catholic teaching, and in many cases, whatever they are preaching on will be correct, so with that understanding this would show why this was said in the document. Catholics cannot go to schismatic rites, even though they are valid, and even though their preaching may in most cases seem good and Catholic.
To conclude, while the document did not use the terms "declared," or "undeclared" heretic or schismatic, it makes it very clear as to whom they (S.C. Prop Fide) were addressing and this should have been obvious to Fr. Cekada, who also left out key elements of the paragraph that would have made this more clear from his quote. The document has nothing to do with undeclared heretics, therefore it's use has absolutely nothing to do with Catholics who attend a Catholic rite said by a Catholic (one who still believes the Catholic Faith) priest, who names an undeclared heretic/schismatic in the rite.
Here is the section of the letter from my correspondent:
On page 10, Fr. Cekada brings up this quote:
... There is hardly any rite among the heterodox that is not stained with some error in faith... espe- cially where a commemoration is made of living Patriarchs and Bishops — schismatics and heretics — who are proclaimed preachers of the Catholic faith. For this reason, any Catholics who come to- gether under circumstances like this to celebrate a rite of prayer and worship cannot excuse them- selves from the sin of evil common worship, or at least, from the sin of pernicious scandal.52
A response I've heard is that Francis is an undeclared heretic, but on page 15, Fr. Cekada says the documents don't distinguish between declared and undeclared heretics.
... There is hardly any rite among the heterodox that is not stained with some error in faith... espe- cially where a commemoration is made of living Patriarchs and Bishops — schismatics and heretics — who are proclaimed preachers of the Catholic faith. For this reason, any Catholics who come to- gether under circumstances like this to celebrate a rite of prayer and worship cannot excuse them- selves from the sin of evil common worship, or at least, from the sin of pernicious scandal.52
A response I've heard is that Francis is an undeclared heretic, but on page 15, Fr. Cekada says the documents don't distinguish between declared and undeclared heretics.
There is so much to say on this quote, but the very first thing to notice is the use of ellipses, which in my opinion, always calls for verifying the complete quote, to make sure the quote is being used in context.
I will now quote Fr. Cekada's entire statement with this quote, to both be fair to him, but also to demonstrate that he did not use this quote in context with what it actually taught. This quote is placed right after his use of a quote from de la Taille, which I will get to in another post.
F. Participation in a Sin
More than that, de la Taille maintains that men- tioning a heretic by name in any liturgical prayer is also a sin:
“Moreover, since today neither in the commemoratio pro vivis nor in any other part of the Mass does the Church commend by name any living person except such a one as is considered to be in communion with her, today it would also appear sinful to mention by name in any liturgical prayer whatever, an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic, or an excommunicated person. This privation of the common suf- frages of the Church is by no means confined to the excommunicati vitandi alone, as may be seen from the Code of Canon Law (can. 2262, parag. 1).”51
Nor would it be morally permissible to assist at a
rite where this is done. In a 1729 the Vatican Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith decreed:
... There is hardly any rite among the heterodox that is not stained with some error in faith... especially where a commemoration is made of living Patriarchs and Bishops — schismatics and heretics — who are proclaimed preachers of the Catholic faith. For this reason, any Catholics who come together under circumstances like this to celebrate a rite of prayer and worship cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship, or at least, from the sin of pernicious scandal."52
By actively assisting at an una cum Mass, the sedevacantist participates in this sin — one made all the worse because it is committed seconds before the Spotless Victim is brought down upon the altar.
More than that, de la Taille maintains that men- tioning a heretic by name in any liturgical prayer is also a sin:
“Moreover, since today neither in the commemoratio pro vivis nor in any other part of the Mass does the Church commend by name any living person except such a one as is considered to be in communion with her, today it would also appear sinful to mention by name in any liturgical prayer whatever, an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic, or an excommunicated person. This privation of the common suf- frages of the Church is by no means confined to the excommunicati vitandi alone, as may be seen from the Code of Canon Law (can. 2262, parag. 1).”51
Nor would it be morally permissible to assist at a
rite where this is done. In a 1729 the Vatican Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith decreed:
... There is hardly any rite among the heterodox that is not stained with some error in faith... especially where a commemoration is made of living Patriarchs and Bishops — schismatics and heretics — who are proclaimed preachers of the Catholic faith. For this reason, any Catholics who come together under circumstances like this to celebrate a rite of prayer and worship cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship, or at least, from the sin of pernicious scandal."52
By actively assisting at an una cum Mass, the sedevacantist participates in this sin — one made all the worse because it is committed seconds before the Spotless Victim is brought down upon the altar.
Footnote 52 from above reads,
52. SC de Prop. Fide, Instruction (Pro Mission. Orient.), 1729, Fontes 7:4505. “Id ex eo etiam confirmatur magis quod vix ullus sit ritus apud heterodoxos qui aliquo errore in materia fidei non maculetur:... vel denique commemoratio fit viventium Patriacha- rum, et Episcoporum, schismaticorum, et haereticorum, qui ut fidei catholicae praedicatores commendatur. Qua de re, qui in ea ritus et orationis et cultus celebratione conveniunt in his facti circumstansiis catholici quique, reatu perversae communicationis, aut saltem perni- ciosi scandali purgari non possunt.”
On page 15 of "The Grain of Incense," Fr. Cekada makes this assertion in regards to this quote above:
The various Vatican pronouncements quoted above, moreover, made no distinction between “declared” and “undeclared” heretics. The 1729 decree said that Catholics who participated in rites at which heretics and schismatics were commemorated “cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship.”80 (my emphasis added)
Fortunately, I own the book, as the book is not found on archive.org or any other place online that I am aware. I have found the complete reference, which is nine paragraphs in total, and I was able to analyze it to see if Fr. Cekada's assertion is true. The quote comes from Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, which specifically dealt with the Church in non-Catholic lands, for example lands in which the schismatics controlled everything. Readers can learn more about this HERE.
I placed the entire statement, the full nine paragraphs in the Resource section, in both Latin and English, with direct photos from the book, linked HERE. The statement is very clear in that it is restricting Catholics from attending the rites of schismatics and gives many reasons why, for example, that the living Patriarch is named, that feasts, relics, icons are used of the schismatics, or festivals of those who died in schism, etc.
Almost all of this context is omitted from the section that Fr. Cekada quotes in his essay, and he even asserts that the document doesn't distinguish between declared and undeclared heretics. Since this document is untranslated and is in a large two volume set, all in Latin, on a book not scanned online, probably most either couldn't get to the truth of this assertion, or at a minimum didn't want to put the effort into this. The reader without access to this book, and help to find the quote along with translating it, is completely reliant on Fr. Cekada's assertion of what the document says, as only a small amount was translated by him, along with the fact that only a small broken quote was used (separated by ellipses).
With that said, let's now look at the entire paragraph (par. 4) quoted from Fr. Cekada along with a rough translation provided by Google translate followed by the original Latin for those wanting to perfect the translation, or who know enough Latin to read it:
This is further confirmed by the fact that there is scarcely any rite among the heterodox that is not tainted by some error in the matter of faith: for in their churches, it is either a dedication to the memory of some schismatic whom they venerate as a saint; either there are images, or relics are venerated, or festivals are celebrated of those who died in the schism, as if they were considered saints, or, finally, there is a commemoration of the living Patriarchs, and schismatic bishops, and heretics, who are recommended as Catholic preachers. As a matter of fact, those who in these rites and prayers and worship meet in these circumstances, Catholics, cannot be cleared of the guilt of perverted communication, or at least of pernicious scandal. He does not excuse the gods on the pretext of merely material assistance; for by the very act it is excluded that those who are involved in the function of these heretics or schismatics are sufficient to agree with them in the unity of prayer, in the unity of worship, in the unity of veneration and obedience, they preside over perverted heretical and schismatic ministers.
Latin original:
Id ex eo etiam confirmatur magis quod vix ullus sit ritus apud heterodoxos, qui aliquo errore in materia fidei non maculetur: nam in eorum ecclesiis, vel dedicatio est in memoriam schismatici alicuius, quem ut sanctum venerantur; vel extant imagines, vel coluntur reliquiae vel festa celebrantur eorum, qui in schismate mortui, veluti sancti habentur, vel denique commemoratio fit viventium Patriarcharum, et Episcoporum schismaticorum, et haereticorum, qui ut catholicae praedicatores commendantur. Qua de re, qui in ea ritus et orationis et cultus conveniunt in his facit circumstantiis catholici quique, reatu perversae communicationis, aut saltem perniciosi scandali purgari non possunt. Ne ceos excusat assisteniae mere materialis praetextus; facto enim ipso excluditur, qui functioninus hisce haerticorum, aut schismaticorum intersunt, satis cum ipsis convenire in unitate orationis, in unitate cultus, in unitate venerationis et obsequii perversos ministros haereseos schismatisque praeseferunt.
(emphasis added)
Latin original:
Id ex eo etiam confirmatur magis quod vix ullus sit ritus apud heterodoxos, qui aliquo errore in materia fidei non maculetur: nam in eorum ecclesiis, vel dedicatio est in memoriam schismatici alicuius, quem ut sanctum venerantur; vel extant imagines, vel coluntur reliquiae vel festa celebrantur eorum, qui in schismate mortui, veluti sancti habentur, vel denique commemoratio fit viventium Patriarcharum, et Episcoporum schismaticorum, et haereticorum, qui ut catholicae praedicatores commendantur. Qua de re, qui in ea ritus et orationis et cultus conveniunt in his facit circumstantiis catholici quique, reatu perversae communicationis, aut saltem perniciosi scandali purgari non possunt. Ne ceos excusat assisteniae mere materialis praetextus; facto enim ipso excluditur, qui functioninus hisce haerticorum, aut schismaticorum intersunt, satis cum ipsis convenire in unitate orationis, in unitate cultus, in unitate venerationis et obsequii perversos ministros haereseos schismatisque praeseferunt.
(emphasis added)
I realize that the translation above is far from perfect, and in general, I do not like to translate, as my Latin is limited, but I do know enough to follow along in most cases. There is no doubt that when the entire paragraph is read, that this document is dealing with schismatic sects. The Society of the Propagation of the Faith is specifically charged with the Church in non-Catholic lands, so even from the fact that this document came from them, it is obvious that this deals with sects, not undeclared heretics, as they would have been dealt with by either the Inquisition, or later, the Holy Office.
But, beyond that, it should have been obvious to any researcher from this fact of who the document came from, that the document itself makes it clear as to who and what it is addressing: it is dealing with Catholics who wish to attend the rites of schismatic sects and is giving the reasons of why they cannot do so.
Another consideration that should make it obvious to the reader is to ask oneself who are these "Patriarchs and Bishops" that are being spoken of in these non-Catholics lands? The only persons meeting this description at this time period of the document, 1729, were schismatic sects, not undeclared heretics claiming to be Catholics. It's obviously not referring to some eastern Uniate Patriarch or bishop that has fallen into heresy but has not been declared as such. The entire context omitted by Fr. Cekada firmly closes the door to his interpretation.
So what is this about these patriarchs and bishops that are being proclaimed preachers of the Catholic Faith that the document is mentioning? Doesn't that give a possible doorway to interpret this as being undeclared heretics? No, again, when the entire paragraph, especially the entire document is read, it's clear that this is only dealing with sects, who by the way claim to hold and preach the true Faith, pretending that they are the preachers of the Apostolic doctrine, Tradition, and Councils of the first millennium. So, it's obvious that their preaching will very much sound like Catholic teaching, and in many cases, whatever they are preaching on will be correct, so with that understanding this would show why this was said in the document. Catholics cannot go to schismatic rites, even though they are valid, and even though their preaching may in most cases seem good and Catholic.
To conclude, while the document did not use the terms "declared," or "undeclared" heretic or schismatic, it makes it very clear as to whom they (S.C. Prop Fide) were addressing and this should have been obvious to Fr. Cekada, who also left out key elements of the paragraph that would have made this more clear from his quote. The document has nothing to do with undeclared heretics, therefore it's use has absolutely nothing to do with Catholics who attend a Catholic rite said by a Catholic (one who still believes the Catholic Faith) priest, who names an undeclared heretic/schismatic in the rite.