The Virtue of Intolerance
Intolerance can be both a virtue and a vice. On one hand, in today's world, we are told we must be tolerant of everything and everyone. If you say anything negative about another person's beliefs or actions, you will be accused of intolerance and extremism/fanaticism. The basis of this is the vile doctrine of religious and moral relativism, i.e.,"Whatever makes you happy and works for you is 'your truth,' and whatever makes me happy and works for me is 'my truth.' We have Vatican II, and its poster-boy, Jorge Bergoglio, to thank for relativism's grip on the cultures of the world--- "Who am I to judge?" (moral relativism) and "Atheists can go to Heaven" (religious relativism). In the practical order, moral and religious relativism go hand-in-glove, as Bergoglio amply demonstrates. To be intolerant of evil and error, especially when not politically correct, is a virtue.
On the other hand, there are others (like "follow me or die" Traditionalist clerics), who insist on imposing theological opinions on others while having no Magisterial authority. Unfortunately, Fr. Anthony Cekada falls into this category, and this kind of intolerance is a vice. I'll write on the virtuous kind of intolerance first, and then Fr. Cekada's non-virtuous intolerance.
Recently, I saw a citation I've used before from theologian Berry:
"The prophecies of the Apocalypse [book of Revelation] show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of Pope; and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church. (See The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1927], p. 119).
This is most accurate, as even St. Augustine referred to Satan as Simius Dei---"the ape of God." Consider the words of St. Augustine and theologian Berry as they relate to the Vatican II sect:
- The "church" of Satan is clearly predicted in Apocalypse 2: 9. (Vatican II sect claims to be the Roman Catholic Church in a false imitation)
- It has its own invalidly ordained ministers who bring false sermons and invalid sacraments (except some baptisms and marriages)--See 2 Corinthians 11: 4-5.
- It has its own system of theology (See the 16 Documents of Vatican II with the new and heretical ecclesiology)
- It has false and lying wonders (the "Charismatic movement," etc.)
Vatican II and Moral Relativism
More than fifty years after the Council ended, and started a new sect, we are reaping the results of its "who am I to judge" moral relativism. Remember the words of Christ: "For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." (St. Matthew 24: 37-39). I'm not predicting or hinting the end of the world, as false Protestant ministers like the late Harold Camping did. However, the times certainly seem to be like Noah. The statistics bear this out.
- 71% of Americans believe divorce is morally acceptable
- 68% of Americans believe fornication is acceptable as long as the two people "love" each other
- 63% of Americans believe shacking up ("cohabitation") is okay
- 63% of Americans believe it's OK for married people to have sexual thoughts about someone other than their spouse
- 63% of Americans believe sodomite relations are okay
- 61% of Americans believe it is acceptable to have a baby out of wedlock
- 69% of Americans believe euthanasia should be permitted
- 53% of Americans think having an adulterous affair is justifiable
- 50% of Americans identify as "pro-choice"--the alleged right to murder an innocent unborn baby
Vatican II and Religious Relativism
Let's look at two of the most Catholic countries in the world before Vatican II to see the decimation when "religious liberty" and the idea that "beliefs don't matter" take hold.
Eighty-four percent of the Republic’s citizens still describe themselves as Catholic, but that’s becoming more of a cultural than a religious identity. According to the country’s archbishop, weekly church attendance has declined from 90 percent in 1984 to 18 percent in 2011. Less than half of Irish now consider themselves religious, and surveys show religiosity is declining faster in Ireland than almost every other country in the world. Ireland now ranks seventh in the world for atheism. And Ireland’s Catholics are decidedly non-orthodox about their faith: Ninety percent believe priests should be allowed to marry, for instance. Ireland once supplied priests to churches throughout the world, but the country now has so few that the church fears there may soon not be enough for weddings and funerals. (See http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/05/22/ireland_was_once_the_most_catholic_country_now_it_might_be_the_first_to.html) They have legalized sodomite "marriage."
Once one of the most Catholic countries, as of 2009, only 56.8% baptize their children and only 5% attend the Novus Bogus "mass." They have legalized abortion, euthanasia (including children who want to die), and sodomite "marriage."
Finally, how about these statistics from Kenneth C. Jones, Index of Leading Catholic Indicators (2003):
A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.
Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus.
Intolerance is a virtue. It doesn't mean we go around hating people, but ideas and actions should be forcefully hated and condemned. We should be intolerant of abortion, sodomite "marriage" and the idea that beliefs don't matter, because "all religions lead to God." If someone believes all religions lead to salvation, then he believes he has the correct perspective to the exclusion of all who think otherwise, whom he would consider wrong and (ironically) be intolerant of their belief! Relativism is self-refuting, and has lead to the disaster of the moral and religious chaos all around us. Objective truth and objective morality exist, and it carries with it great implications for us. We must strive to live in accordance with them.
Intolerance as a Vice
As the regular readers of my blog know, I believe that it is OK to attend the Mass of a valid priest who professes the Integral Catholic Faith, is not in actual union with the Vatican II sect, yet uses the name of Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass (so-called "Una Cum" Mass). Please see my posts of 7/10/17 ("Una Cum") and 8/14/17 ("Prayers For Non-Catholics") for the full background.
My opinion has been challenged by Fr. Anthony Cekada, a leading sedevacantist priest, who thinks attendance is sinful and anyone who disagrees with him is somehow benighted. Here is what he had to say about my blog post "Una Cum":
Since George III, obviously, was a Protestant heretic and a pope approved inserting his name — the blogger’s argument went — there’s no real problem for sedes to assist at a Mass where the name of a heretical pope is inserted into the Canon.
The blogger cited no papal decree for his rather astounding factual claim, and nothing to this effect appears in the official Decreta Authenica of the Vatican’s Congregation of Sacred Rites.
The only source the blogger provided was this link, which leads to an 1806 Latin-English missal for the laity, in which the phrase pro Rege nostro N. (for our King, N.) has been inserted into the Canon. How did it get to be put into a Missal for the laity? Who knows? We certainly don’t have to accept the authority of its publisher, P. Keating of Brown & Co., 37 Duke St., Grosvenor Square.
But in any event, as regards the priest’s altar Missal itself, the liturgical commentators are clear: The Missal of Pius V discontinued the mention of the king or civil rulers in the Te Igitur, and the practice was allowed only by way of privilege (as in Spain and Austria), where the ruler was a Catholic.
Caught out on the specific issue of the Canon, the blogger replied that, well, having consulted one of the four thousand books in his personal library, he finds that the Church allowed other public prayers to be chanted for a non-Catholic monarch or president.
Well sure, — but this was in the official’s civil capacity as head of a secular state. And in the case of England, this took the form of a prayer chanted after the Mass was over.
The Pope, on the other hand, is prayed for during the Canon of the Mass in his religious capacity as head of the Church.
If the blogger couldn’t figure out that basic distinction, his four thousand books haven’t done him a lot of good. Maybe he should get with (sic) the Bergoglio’s environmentalist program and recycle them. (See http://www.fathercekada.com/)
Got all that? Fr. Cekada has not engaged my arguments, but merely dismisses them in an intellectually shoddy manner.
The fact that an 1806 missal for the laity in England contains a prayer for the King in the Canon, and that practice was eliminated since the 16th century, should raise some eyebrows that perhaps the King's name was used. Nevertheless, he wants to dismiss it for a lack of an authoritative decision from the Vatican. That's fair. However, one of those four thousand books I have in my library, was one contained in Fr. Cekada's library as well. It was theologian Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press,  which he cites in his article The Grain of Incense. I wasn't "caught out on the specific issue of the Canon," but rather Fr. Cekada got caught out on the portion of Szal he didn't cite. I went back and examined Fr. Cekada's article The Grain of Incense available to view/download at traditionalmass.org. On page 10, footnote 50, Fr. Cekada writes, "... From [theologian Fr. Ignatius] Szal (183), though, it seems that the most the Holy See occasionally tolerated was a prayer for a lay heretic or schismatic in his capacity as a head of state (King, President, etc.) — but never one for a heretical or schismatic cleric."
This changes his argument substantially to, "It's permissible to pray for a heretical head of state liturgically, but not a heretical cleric." Says whom? When I say, "whom" I mean what approved theologian, canonist, or decree of the Holy See supports this contention? Not theologian Szal. Now, Fr. Cekada is inferring something not expressly addressed. From page 183 of Szal's book, we read:
Benedict XIV, in an encyclical letter of March 1, 1756, condemned the practice of mentioning liturgically the name of the Bishop or Patriarch when he was recognized as a heretic or a schismatic. However, a favorable reply was given by the Holy Office on February 23, 1820, for the Archdiocese of Quebec. It was revealed in this case that prayers were said for the Pope, for the Bishop, and for the King, at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. And at Solemn Mass there was sung the "Domine, salvum fac Regem." The continuance of both practices was tolerated. Here, then, there was question of a heretical monarch, but the same principle of tolerance could also find application when there was question of a schismatic.
Fr. Cekada argues that it is a grave sin to attend an Una Cum Mass, and that the King of England (a) was only prayed for in his capacity as head of a secular state, and (b) in any event, his name did not appear in the Canon.
Here are the pertinent problems of Fr. Cekada's position and his attempted defense of it:
1. Theologian Szal makes it clear that the King of England was prayed for liturgically.
2. Fr. Cekada makes an unsupported assertion that it was strictly in his civil capacity as head of a secular state.
3. There is nothing in Szal’s text that supports this contention. It is Fr. Cekada’s assumption for which he supplies no citation to relevant authority.
4. In the case of England the monarch is also the Head of the false Anglican Sect. To hold one office necessarily entails the other. For example, if we pray for the U.S. President, we pray for the Chief Executive of the Nation. We also pray for the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces serving the U.S., because that is intimately bound up as one of the powers and duties of the office. You cannot impeach and remove Donald Trump as Commander-in – Chief of the armed forces while retaining him as Chief Executive of the Nation, or vice-versa. To pray for the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces is to pray for the Chief Executive of the Nation.
5. Since the time of Henry VIII, the King (or Queen) of England is also the Head of the Anglican Church. Just as you can’t separate the functions of the American President, the same holds with regard to the English monarch. In order to be the Head of the Anglican sect, you must be the English monarch. To be the English monarch, you must be the Head of the Anglican sect. The monarch of England is therefore a religious office. In a real sense, one could consider the King/Queen of England a cleric.
6. It is not at all clear from the text of the prayer used liturgically that the King of England is only being prayed for as head of a secular state, especially when England in 1820 had a state religion and Catholicism was merely tolerated. The person in the pew would think that the King --and all he represents--are being prayed for, and if this were not true, (if he were only being prayed for as Head of a secular state, but people would think otherwise) the liturgical prayer would be scandalous.
7. However, the Church cannot give that which is evil (scandalous), so praying for a heretic, even one who is the head of a false sect, cannot be considered wrong or contrary to Divine Positive Law. Fr. Cekada has also not shown how praying for a heretic in the Canon is qualitatively different than in other official liturgical functions. Is one fine, but the other a grave sin? Is it only the name of a heretic in the Canon that's sinful? What authority makes these distinctions? Fr. Cekada even contends that to make a visit to a Traditionalist chapel to adore the Blessed Sacrament is a sin if done while an Una Cum Mass is being offered!
8. Back to my analogy with the U.S., Fr. Cekada claims that in the Canon of the Mass, the pope is prayed for as Head of the Church. The 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows the U.S. President, when prevented from exercising his powers, to retain the office as a placeholder, while the Vice-President receives all powers and duties of office as Acting President. Here we have a "material" president who holds the office devoid of authority. Sound like sedeprivationism? It should! Why can’t we do the same in regard to Francis and pray for him as material papal placeholder? How about as Head of State of Vatican City?
9. Fr. Cekada offers no citations saying #8 above can’t be done, especially since theologian Guerard des Lauriers didn’t discuss his thesis until after the Great Apostasy of Vatican II, so you will find no approved pre-V2 theologians writing about its plausibility, merits, or demerits. Unlike Fr.Cekada, Fr. (later Bp.) Guerard des Lauriers was a top theologian pre-Vatican II. He drafted the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus at the request of Pope Pius XII which defined the dogma of the Blessed Virgin Mary's Assumption into Heaven.
10. What does Fr. Cekada offer to “prove” the name of Bergoglio can’t be used if the sedeprivationist theory is viable? His own ipse dixit. (The authority of P. Keating of Brown & Co., 37 Duke St., Grosvenor Square, is looking better all the time).
11. In the practical order, you cannot attend the Mass of a sedevacantist priest who disagrees with Fr. Cekada. One of the nine ways to be an accessory to another's sin is by counsel. The CMRI, SSPV, and some independent sedevacantist priests tell their congregations it's OK to attend an Una Cum Mass by the SSPX or other "R&R" clergy. If what Fr. Cekada says is true, they are telling people it's alright to commit a grave sin. That's public scandal, and manifestly evil. You could not go to that priest's Mass just as if he were to counsel people it's not a sin to go to an Eastern Schismatic liturgy, or the Novus Bogus "mass." Does Fr. Cekada believe this is the case? He may end up keeping many people "Home Alone" even when SSPV and CMRI chapels are readily available!
As far as being able to discern basic distinctions, I have no problem in that area. For example, I know the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary means of life support. This prevents me from making a disgrace of myself by sanctioning the MURDER of Terri Schiavo by dehydration and starvation. My spiritual father, the late, great Fr. Gommar DePauw was a REAL Canonist, having received his JCD from Catholic University of America in 1955 (pre-Vatican II). He taught Canon Law and Moral Theology at Mount St. Mary’s Major Seminary for the Archdiocese of Baltimore from 1955-1962, and was a peritus (theological expert) at Vatican II, helping fight the Modernists. Fr. De Pauw, like ALL Traditionalist Catholic clergy (except Fr. Cekada and his buddy Bp. Dolan) roundly condemned what was happening to her from the pulpit using Catholic moral principles applied to the facts at hand. If Fr. Cekada claims he didn't know all the facts of the case (as some say in his defense), he had no business making such claims regarding (literally) life and death.
Not only did Fr. Cekada disgrace himself, he made other Traditionalists look like ghouls by claiming a direct sin against the Fifth Commandment was morally permissible. To my knowledge, he has not been humble enough, nor man enough, to admit he was wrong and apologize for what scandal he caused.
Intolerance can be a virtue or a vice. In the Vatican II sect, they teach people must never be intolerant (except when it comes to Traditionalists). For some clerics, you must be intolerant of anything that contradicts them, even on matters not settled by those with Magisterial authority. I thought Fr. Cekada would give me a real intellectual challenge. Instead, he prefers to be flippant and dismissive. If this all he learned while at Econe, he may want to add his diploma to my books when I take them to the Bergoglian environmental recycling plant.