'I wish he better understood Fr. Cekada’s arguments and addressed them', was a response to Hudson's previous study on the 'una cum' question. Here is his response.
I know that this has little to do with the article, but what is precisely a “sacramental bishop” in the Catholic Church? Obviously a schismatic bishop has no relation with the power of government, but the same cannot be said in relation to a catholic bishop. The problem of this concept is even higher when one considers that this catholic bishop is in fact exercising functions reserved by divine law to ordinaries (as long as they belong to the power of government of the Church) such as stablishing seminaries, chapels, lifting excommunications of converts, etc.
I will leave in this sense a quote of Fr. Bouix taken from his treatise “De Episcopo” where he explains the essential role of the episcopacy, contrary to what many believe today:
"What belongs to the essence of the Episcopate is the high priesthood as it was instituted for ecclesiastical government. For what belongs to the essence of the episcopate is that without which a true and proper episcopate cannot be conceived. But the episcopate properly so called cannot be conceived by referring to the fullness of the priesthood alone, apart from any consideration of jurisdictional power. For in the first place, the word Episcopus itself denotes the oversight or power to govern; and this name of bishop was introduced for priests of the highest rank because of this function of governing. In the second place, a full priesthood instituted solely for the exercise of the power of ordination, and not for the government of the various parts of the Church, would be a very different institution from the episcopate which Christ actually instituted. For, as has been proved above [in an earlier section of the treatise], Christ not only instituted the high priesthood, but also willed that the various parts of the Church should ordinarily be governed by it. It follows that in the concept of the episcopate as instituted by Christ or as properly called, the following two things are included: the fullness of the priesthood and the appointment to the government of the Church. Therefore, a definition of the episcopate as only the fullness of the priesthood would not be correct. Indeed, one could conceive of a high priesthood that was instituted only for the exercise of the power of orders; such a priesthood, however, would be quite different from that ordained by the Holy Spirit to govern the Church of God. It is this latter priesthood, and not the former, which is to be regarded as the true and properly called episcopacy. Thirdly, the same thing is proved by the manner of speaking which has always been accepted by the Church. For in all antiquity we find bishops referred to by the names of pastors, teachers, chiefs, and other similar names which express jurisdiction. And it is much more frequent and common for the episcopate itself to be designated as a power of jurisdiction rather than a power of orders. Therefore, the episcopate has always been understood not as the fullness of the priesthood or the power of orders, alone and without qualification, but also through the relation of the episcopate to the government of the Church and the finality of it. Thus, in fact, what pertains to the essence of the episcopate thus understood, as it must be understood, is not only the fullness of the priesthood, but the fullness of the priesthood as it is instituted for ecclesiastical government. "
If you use this concepts to say that the Church is no more visible, or to say that the apostolicity is kept in some retired bishop (ergo, a bishop who has jurisdiction no more) then I am not with you either
The absolute neccesity of papal mandate is demonstrated as false by history, that’s why the theologians advocate the concept of the tacit will of the Popes which is certain in neccesity, which is what explains the transmission of jurisdiction in these cases
A sacramental bishop is akin to the missionary bishops of the past - bishops without jurisdiction sent to provide the sacraments in distant regions where the Faith was only beginning to be spread, and where there was no hierarchy at all.
Not all bishops have jurisdiction or authority over souls. Auxiliary bishops are another example of that. Even though the Church later demanded a virtual title for those bishops, for the majority of her history she did not, e.g. a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on auxiliary bishops showing that there were auxiliary bishops long before there was such a thing as a title "in partibus" (so, they were bishops without a title):
"Present usage requires an auxiliary, suffragan, and temporary coadjutor (used indiscriminately to mean almost the same office) to be also a titular bishop, yet the former antedate the latter by many centuries. They come down to us from Apostolic times; thus Linus and Cletus were vicars, or auxiliaries, to St. Peter at Rome; Ammianus [Anianus], to St. Mark of Alexandria; Alexander, to Narcissus (aged 116 years) of Jerusalem; St. Gregory the Theologian, auxiliary in pontificals to St. Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus"
Also, regarding your claim about retired bishops, you should know that a bishop's resignation is only valid when accepted by a superior. Since there is no Pope to accept their resignation, they are not really retired and maintain their jurisdiction.
There is a distinction which you are not taking into account.
All the bishops in the Catholic Church are able to exercise jurisdiction in an ecumenical council, that’s why they receive an ontological aptitude to rule the Church in the episcopal consecration.
Auxiliary or missionary bishops don’t have a particular jurisdiction, but when they are called to vote in a council they have a right to vote with deliberative power just as any residential bishop or even patriarchs.
Also, those bishops when they act individually they do so in the name of another authority, not on their own. These examples doesn’t allow to justify a sacramental hierarchy completely isolated to the hierarchy of jurisdiction. That’s why I shared before that quote of Fr. Bouix. Obviously the actions of these bishops cannot be equated to that of traditional bishops, since their role is superior to that of an auxiliary.
About the argument of invalidity of retired bishop, it is the same argument as those who justify the mistakes done by other bishops in other situations: if the bishop recognizes the authority of conciliar Popes as valid, then canon 209 supplies any defect, and his resignation is effective.
It would be better to study more seriously these things instead of repeating non-sense you can see here and there from people who try to justify unjustifiable positions.
I explained how we still have a visible and identifiable hierarchy of jurisdiction (which is linked to the visibility and apostolicity of the Church) in this article:
Auxiliary bishops do not exercise jurisdiction at all. According to Canon Law, they need not be called to an ecumenical council, and receive a deliberative vote only if they are called (it's not just bishops who have a deliberative vote in an ecumenical council, e.g. all cardinals have it, even those who are not bishops, which means that they have no jurisdiction). If auxiliary bishops actually possessed jurisdiction, then it would be unjust not to call them, and it would make it possible to question whether the council was ecumenical, since some of the rulers of the Church were deliberately excluded. And yet nowhere is it said that they *must* be called.
Fr. Augustine is his Commentary on the Code:
"Those who *must* be called are the bishops, be they patriarchs, primates, archbishops, or simple bishops, provided they are residential, ***and not merely titular***. The reason why the residential bishops must be called lies in their twofold character of pastors and teachers. This double office they exercise in a twofold way: (i) As successors of the Apostles they share in the government of the universal Church and form a body analogous to the college of the Apostles, with whom Christ remains until the end of time. (2) As residential bishops they exercise their office in a determined district or diocese, which, however, is part and parcel of the universal Church. This power is jurisdictional in a particular sense, while the power they exercise over the whole Church is jurisdictional in a general sense, so far, namely, as they convene in council under their legitimate superior."
You said: "This examples doesn’t allow to justify a sacramental hierarchy completely isolated to the hierarchy of jurisdiction."
Sacramental bishops are not a hierarchy. Missionary bishops were often physically isolated from the hierarchy of jurisdiction, so there is historical precedent.
You said: "if the bishop recognizes the authority of conciliar Popes as valid, then canon 209 supplies any defect, and his resignation is effective."
Clearly you don't understand how supplied jurisdiction operates. It has nothing to do with whether the person recognizes the Modernist usurpers, nor can it be used to validate anything contrary to the good of the Church or of souls, but only that which is necessary for the good of souls. If a true Catholic bishop offers a resignation to be replaced with an invalidly ordained heretic, such an act would, of course, not receive a supply a jurisdiction.
It would be better if you followed your own advice, friend.
1- I didn’t speaked on the neccesity of the titular bishops to being called to the ecumenical council, I only said that when they participate in the council they exercise the same authority as any patriarch or residential bishop.
2- All missionary bishops act by a delegated jurisdiction. If they are phisically isolated from any other bishop they act by a jurisdiction received by the pope, who has universal jurisdiction. This is not the same case as those who defend the novelty of sacramental bishops today.
3- You are making an extense of canon 209. The canon is very clear: any common error is enough to supply the jurisdiction. Bp. De La Parra effectively resigned, since he doesn’t exercise any ministry. Your hypothesis simply deny reality.
4- I maintain my advice, and sadly, I am not your friend.
1 - Their vote does not imply any jurisdiction, as I proved from the example of the Cardinals who are not bishops.
2 - Sacramental bishops act using supplied jurisdiction for each particular act which is necessary to help souls. It is not the same, but it is the closest analogy, because it is possible that missionary bishops could have found themselves in a situation in which they could not ask for a delegation. The closest modern example is of bishops who consecrated other bishops behind the Iron Curtain without being able to get permission or appointment from the Pope.
3 - You obviously don't understand the principles of Canon Law if you claim that it would ever act to harm souls. And I am not talking about any particular bishop, nor do I know who this Bp. De La Parra is. Even if a particular bishop thought that his resignation is valid, that would not make it so.
As for trad bishops or priests possessing jurisdiction, which concrete person gave it to them? If the answer is no one, that that is called usurpation. If the answer is the faithful, that that is heresy condemned in Auctorem Fidei. If the answer is God, then just as St. Robert Bellarmine asked the Protestants who alleged an extraordinary mission, we must also ask them to provide miracles as proof of such a mission.
The manifest fact recognized by all, even those who promote such a fantastic claim that trad bishops possess jurisdiction, is that they have not in fact received any such power in any canonical way whatsoever, from any actual legitimate authority, which means such a claim to possess it is a clear case of usurpation.
1- Cardinals attend to the council because they have a participation in the primacy, don’t confuse this with the episcopal power.
2- If they have supplied jurisdiction they must have received by someone, as you say it later, it doesn’t exist a jurisdiction ordered only to the power of sanctification, all jurisdiction implies power to rule, even in the internal forum. What all theologians explains in cases of neccesity is that the delegation from the pope is certain because of neccesity and is extended to all what the state of neccesity requires.
The point is that all jurisdiction in the Church comes from Christ and is mediated by the Pope, but this mediation can be explicit or tacit.
So in the actual case what I say is that the jurisdiction of the bishops comes through canon law (by the mechanism of Canon 20) which is something approved by the Popes. What I say also is that jurisdiction is given not only for salvation of souls but also for the edification of the Church.
If you want to see more details on this you can check it in the article I wrote.
If you are not talking about Bp. De La Parra then you shouldn’t be talking about this topic of the resignation of bishops because you are introducing yourself in something you don’t know.
Because it has so little to do with the article could you please take your off topic discussion somewhere else? Here is a good place: https://t.me/c/2353585305/29118
I don't mind it being here. It is off topic which is normally against the rules but if people want to make the post more visible with all these comments, I'm not going to complain.
I know it’s 150 pages long, but Zero Marks is 35,000 words long so why can we not read this study in its entirety on substack? It seems a real shame to keep it on google drive which I cannot access due to network restrictions.
Also, could we please move the off topic discussion on jurisdiction somewhere else? Like here: https://t.me/c/2353585305/29118
Co-pilot says "In a single request, I can comfortably process and reformat roughly 20–30 pages of standard Word‑document text (about 10,000–15,000 words). That’s the range where: I can ingest the content, Understand the structure, Reformat it cleanly for Substack (headings, spacing, embeds, callouts, etc.) And return it in one go without truncation."
I think the ability to quote your work on substack and in other places with direct links back to the original text is of value. If you don't mind I'd be grateful if it could be formatted for this purpose.
I am grateful to see this here. Though I do not rejoice in Fr. Cekada's death, when he was alive, it was nearly impossible to have any sort of critique, study, or discourse surrounding his works. On one hand, it is a shame he is not able to be shown his mistakes but it is refreshing to see a work such as this without fear of being banned, ridiculed, or having a post removed. I hope this work is widely read and helps those who are unnecessarily depriving themselves of the sacraments.
I like to think that I'm more interested in truth and charity than in my reputation (God alone knows!), and I thank you for your encouraging comments. If you have any criticisms of what I have written, please leave them here or on Twitter. God bless you.
Having spoken with the author, readers should be aware that this is still a living document and changes will be made to it over time. It is written in a style that may be less accessible than most WM Review content as it is targeted at those with theological/seminary training. It is a very long document and may not be suitable for a general audience.
He's written it in the style he has written it, and he has provided the executive summary for those for whom it is too much. He can't be expected to make a third (or fourth, or fifth) adaptation to every possible degree of ability / motivation. If you want the quick snappy piece, that's the summary.
As for the length of critiques vis a vis original works: on the contrary, it can typically take many, many more words to reply to a claim that it took to make the claim.
I'd still encourage Michael to move his thesis to the front above the beginning of his critique of "grain of incense" but given that is intended for intellectuals and priests it is written appropriately.
I would still like to see some smaller works using language that is more accessible to the general public to spread the message. A lot of people will give up too soon.
I actually had this conversation with Michael in private before my last comment. The reason for his work being put out with perhaps less polish than he'd like (he is planning further changes) is he is expecting a very big life change and he wanted to get the work to readers before then, which I completely empathise with. He sees it as a work in progress which is part of the reason why he published it on google drive where he can edit it further.
He agreed that the location of the thesis was a bit disjointed, which is what my original comment related to. It is really important for the first chapter in any work to be well written as it sets an expectation for what might follow. What I read from then on is much better.
I think the biggest challenge for me with approaching this article is it differs in style a lot from your own which is more accessible to the general public, probably because you have experience writing for the news media. This article is clearly targeted at an intellectual audience with seminary or theological training and is written in a style suitable for that audience, but more challenging for a general audience. I think a note on this so readers have this expectation in mind would be helpful as the style of this article is so different to the content that usually released on the WM Review. Also noting that it is still a work in progress would be helpful too.
I'm sorry if you feel like you're being bossed around. That was never my intention. Just because I'd like to see some smaller works on this topic doesn't mean that I expect Michael or you to write them. With Michael's life change I certainly don't expect to see him expanding upon this further anytime soon. I'm pretty sure he understands this. This isn't a topic you've been willing to write on personally, which is why I'm grateful Michael does.
In my opinion smaller more accessible articles would be helpful in expanding the reach of the message being conveyed. I think that is a very valuable thing when many NUCs think they live in sacramental deserts, but they in fact don't. But if a document like this can get the priests and bishops who follow NUC teachings to abandon them, then it would more than achieve its goal.
Anyway, I've edited my public criticisms and I hope they are fairer than the wording I chose previously.
I would argue against the notion that those masses offered during Roncalli and Montini prior to the adoption of the "una cum" position by +Bp. Des Lauriers, et al., did not constitute a defection of anything; they were simply at worst offensive and at best not pleasing to God. Nothing went away at that time or ceased to exist; the ability to offer the sacrifice was still very much present. It is not different from the extended vacancy of the Holy See and the various episcopal sees, which have not ceased to exist, but are simply unoccupied.
The Eastern schismatics have valid sacraments, particularly a valid liturgy; however, their offerings are offensive due to their schism and heresy. If that impediment was removed, however, and they returned to the Catholic Church, then there would be no issue. Nothing has ceased in the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome.
I think the argument that the Church universally offering worship that is “at worst offensive and at best not pleasing to God” is what constitutes the defection.
Thanks for this. Have you considered putting your site on Substack?
No, I value your contributions, even when I disagree (or at least don't agree)
I know that this has little to do with the article, but what is precisely a “sacramental bishop” in the Catholic Church? Obviously a schismatic bishop has no relation with the power of government, but the same cannot be said in relation to a catholic bishop. The problem of this concept is even higher when one considers that this catholic bishop is in fact exercising functions reserved by divine law to ordinaries (as long as they belong to the power of government of the Church) such as stablishing seminaries, chapels, lifting excommunications of converts, etc.
I will leave in this sense a quote of Fr. Bouix taken from his treatise “De Episcopo” where he explains the essential role of the episcopacy, contrary to what many believe today:
"What belongs to the essence of the Episcopate is the high priesthood as it was instituted for ecclesiastical government. For what belongs to the essence of the episcopate is that without which a true and proper episcopate cannot be conceived. But the episcopate properly so called cannot be conceived by referring to the fullness of the priesthood alone, apart from any consideration of jurisdictional power. For in the first place, the word Episcopus itself denotes the oversight or power to govern; and this name of bishop was introduced for priests of the highest rank because of this function of governing. In the second place, a full priesthood instituted solely for the exercise of the power of ordination, and not for the government of the various parts of the Church, would be a very different institution from the episcopate which Christ actually instituted. For, as has been proved above [in an earlier section of the treatise], Christ not only instituted the high priesthood, but also willed that the various parts of the Church should ordinarily be governed by it. It follows that in the concept of the episcopate as instituted by Christ or as properly called, the following two things are included: the fullness of the priesthood and the appointment to the government of the Church. Therefore, a definition of the episcopate as only the fullness of the priesthood would not be correct. Indeed, one could conceive of a high priesthood that was instituted only for the exercise of the power of orders; such a priesthood, however, would be quite different from that ordained by the Holy Spirit to govern the Church of God. It is this latter priesthood, and not the former, which is to be regarded as the true and properly called episcopacy. Thirdly, the same thing is proved by the manner of speaking which has always been accepted by the Church. For in all antiquity we find bishops referred to by the names of pastors, teachers, chiefs, and other similar names which express jurisdiction. And it is much more frequent and common for the episcopate itself to be designated as a power of jurisdiction rather than a power of orders. Therefore, the episcopate has always been understood not as the fullness of the priesthood or the power of orders, alone and without qualification, but also through the relation of the episcopate to the government of the Church and the finality of it. Thus, in fact, what pertains to the essence of the episcopate thus understood, as it must be understood, is not only the fullness of the priesthood, but the fullness of the priesthood as it is instituted for ecclesiastical government. "
If you use this concepts to say that the Church is no more visible, or to say that the apostolicity is kept in some retired bishop (ergo, a bishop who has jurisdiction no more) then I am not with you either
The absolute neccesity of papal mandate is demonstrated as false by history, that’s why the theologians advocate the concept of the tacit will of the Popes which is certain in neccesity, which is what explains the transmission of jurisdiction in these cases
And I say also that the consent of the Apostolic See is certain in cases of unforeseen neccesity, that’s why this quote doesn’t refute anything
Mr. Montenegro,
A sacramental bishop is akin to the missionary bishops of the past - bishops without jurisdiction sent to provide the sacraments in distant regions where the Faith was only beginning to be spread, and where there was no hierarchy at all.
Not all bishops have jurisdiction or authority over souls. Auxiliary bishops are another example of that. Even though the Church later demanded a virtual title for those bishops, for the majority of her history she did not, e.g. a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on auxiliary bishops showing that there were auxiliary bishops long before there was such a thing as a title "in partibus" (so, they were bishops without a title):
"Present usage requires an auxiliary, suffragan, and temporary coadjutor (used indiscriminately to mean almost the same office) to be also a titular bishop, yet the former antedate the latter by many centuries. They come down to us from Apostolic times; thus Linus and Cletus were vicars, or auxiliaries, to St. Peter at Rome; Ammianus [Anianus], to St. Mark of Alexandria; Alexander, to Narcissus (aged 116 years) of Jerusalem; St. Gregory the Theologian, auxiliary in pontificals to St. Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus"
Also, regarding your claim about retired bishops, you should know that a bishop's resignation is only valid when accepted by a superior. Since there is no Pope to accept their resignation, they are not really retired and maintain their jurisdiction.
There is a distinction which you are not taking into account.
All the bishops in the Catholic Church are able to exercise jurisdiction in an ecumenical council, that’s why they receive an ontological aptitude to rule the Church in the episcopal consecration.
Auxiliary or missionary bishops don’t have a particular jurisdiction, but when they are called to vote in a council they have a right to vote with deliberative power just as any residential bishop or even patriarchs.
Also, those bishops when they act individually they do so in the name of another authority, not on their own. These examples doesn’t allow to justify a sacramental hierarchy completely isolated to the hierarchy of jurisdiction. That’s why I shared before that quote of Fr. Bouix. Obviously the actions of these bishops cannot be equated to that of traditional bishops, since their role is superior to that of an auxiliary.
About the argument of invalidity of retired bishop, it is the same argument as those who justify the mistakes done by other bishops in other situations: if the bishop recognizes the authority of conciliar Popes as valid, then canon 209 supplies any defect, and his resignation is effective.
It would be better to study more seriously these things instead of repeating non-sense you can see here and there from people who try to justify unjustifiable positions.
I explained how we still have a visible and identifiable hierarchy of jurisdiction (which is linked to the visibility and apostolicity of the Church) in this article:
https://thedailyfightofficial.substack.com/p/traditional-episcopal-jurisdiction?r=565ebr&utm_medium=ios
Auxiliary bishops do not exercise jurisdiction at all. According to Canon Law, they need not be called to an ecumenical council, and receive a deliberative vote only if they are called (it's not just bishops who have a deliberative vote in an ecumenical council, e.g. all cardinals have it, even those who are not bishops, which means that they have no jurisdiction). If auxiliary bishops actually possessed jurisdiction, then it would be unjust not to call them, and it would make it possible to question whether the council was ecumenical, since some of the rulers of the Church were deliberately excluded. And yet nowhere is it said that they *must* be called.
Fr. Augustine is his Commentary on the Code:
"Those who *must* be called are the bishops, be they patriarchs, primates, archbishops, or simple bishops, provided they are residential, ***and not merely titular***. The reason why the residential bishops must be called lies in their twofold character of pastors and teachers. This double office they exercise in a twofold way: (i) As successors of the Apostles they share in the government of the universal Church and form a body analogous to the college of the Apostles, with whom Christ remains until the end of time. (2) As residential bishops they exercise their office in a determined district or diocese, which, however, is part and parcel of the universal Church. This power is jurisdictional in a particular sense, while the power they exercise over the whole Church is jurisdictional in a general sense, so far, namely, as they convene in council under their legitimate superior."
You said: "This examples doesn’t allow to justify a sacramental hierarchy completely isolated to the hierarchy of jurisdiction."
Sacramental bishops are not a hierarchy. Missionary bishops were often physically isolated from the hierarchy of jurisdiction, so there is historical precedent.
You said: "if the bishop recognizes the authority of conciliar Popes as valid, then canon 209 supplies any defect, and his resignation is effective."
Clearly you don't understand how supplied jurisdiction operates. It has nothing to do with whether the person recognizes the Modernist usurpers, nor can it be used to validate anything contrary to the good of the Church or of souls, but only that which is necessary for the good of souls. If a true Catholic bishop offers a resignation to be replaced with an invalidly ordained heretic, such an act would, of course, not receive a supply a jurisdiction.
It would be better if you followed your own advice, friend.
1- I didn’t speaked on the neccesity of the titular bishops to being called to the ecumenical council, I only said that when they participate in the council they exercise the same authority as any patriarch or residential bishop.
2- All missionary bishops act by a delegated jurisdiction. If they are phisically isolated from any other bishop they act by a jurisdiction received by the pope, who has universal jurisdiction. This is not the same case as those who defend the novelty of sacramental bishops today.
3- You are making an extense of canon 209. The canon is very clear: any common error is enough to supply the jurisdiction. Bp. De La Parra effectively resigned, since he doesn’t exercise any ministry. Your hypothesis simply deny reality.
4- I maintain my advice, and sadly, I am not your friend.
1 - Their vote does not imply any jurisdiction, as I proved from the example of the Cardinals who are not bishops.
2 - Sacramental bishops act using supplied jurisdiction for each particular act which is necessary to help souls. It is not the same, but it is the closest analogy, because it is possible that missionary bishops could have found themselves in a situation in which they could not ask for a delegation. The closest modern example is of bishops who consecrated other bishops behind the Iron Curtain without being able to get permission or appointment from the Pope.
3 - You obviously don't understand the principles of Canon Law if you claim that it would ever act to harm souls. And I am not talking about any particular bishop, nor do I know who this Bp. De La Parra is. Even if a particular bishop thought that his resignation is valid, that would not make it so.
As for trad bishops or priests possessing jurisdiction, which concrete person gave it to them? If the answer is no one, that that is called usurpation. If the answer is the faithful, that that is heresy condemned in Auctorem Fidei. If the answer is God, then just as St. Robert Bellarmine asked the Protestants who alleged an extraordinary mission, we must also ask them to provide miracles as proof of such a mission.
The manifest fact recognized by all, even those who promote such a fantastic claim that trad bishops possess jurisdiction, is that they have not in fact received any such power in any canonical way whatsoever, from any actual legitimate authority, which means such a claim to possess it is a clear case of usurpation.
1- Cardinals attend to the council because they have a participation in the primacy, don’t confuse this with the episcopal power.
2- If they have supplied jurisdiction they must have received by someone, as you say it later, it doesn’t exist a jurisdiction ordered only to the power of sanctification, all jurisdiction implies power to rule, even in the internal forum. What all theologians explains in cases of neccesity is that the delegation from the pope is certain because of neccesity and is extended to all what the state of neccesity requires.
The point is that all jurisdiction in the Church comes from Christ and is mediated by the Pope, but this mediation can be explicit or tacit.
So in the actual case what I say is that the jurisdiction of the bishops comes through canon law (by the mechanism of Canon 20) which is something approved by the Popes. What I say also is that jurisdiction is given not only for salvation of souls but also for the edification of the Church.
If you want to see more details on this you can check it in the article I wrote.
If you are not talking about Bp. De La Parra then you shouldn’t be talking about this topic of the resignation of bishops because you are introducing yourself in something you don’t know.
Because it has so little to do with the article could you please take your off topic discussion somewhere else? Here is a good place: https://t.me/c/2353585305/29118
I don't mind it being here. It is off topic which is normally against the rules but if people want to make the post more visible with all these comments, I'm not going to complain.
I know it’s 150 pages long, but Zero Marks is 35,000 words long so why can we not read this study in its entirety on substack? It seems a real shame to keep it on google drive which I cannot access due to network restrictions.
Also, could we please move the off topic discussion on jurisdiction somewhere else? Like here: https://t.me/c/2353585305/29118
I don't mind the jurisdiction topic here. More comments mean more visibility after all.
As for it being on topic.... it would take a year to format for substack!
Here is a PDF version: https://archive.org/details/cum-grano-salis
Yeah, archive.org is also banned on my network.
Can I DM you somehow?
Co-pilot says "In a single request, I can comfortably process and reformat roughly 20–30 pages of standard Word‑document text (about 10,000–15,000 words). That’s the range where: I can ingest the content, Understand the structure, Reformat it cleanly for Substack (headings, spacing, embeds, callouts, etc.) And return it in one go without truncation."
I think the ability to quote your work on substack and in other places with direct links back to the original text is of value. If you don't mind I'd be grateful if it could be formatted for this purpose.
I'll speak to Hudson. But I wouldn't necessarily believe what AI says it can do. It often underestimates the scale of what it promises.
I tried gemini and it'd only give two pages at a time, but seemed well formatted.
Thanks for sending me a copy.
I am grateful to see this here. Though I do not rejoice in Fr. Cekada's death, when he was alive, it was nearly impossible to have any sort of critique, study, or discourse surrounding his works. On one hand, it is a shame he is not able to be shown his mistakes but it is refreshing to see a work such as this without fear of being banned, ridiculed, or having a post removed. I hope this work is widely read and helps those who are unnecessarily depriving themselves of the sacraments.
I like to think that I'm more interested in truth and charity than in my reputation (God alone knows!), and I thank you for your encouraging comments. If you have any criticisms of what I have written, please leave them here or on Twitter. God bless you.
Having spoken with the author, readers should be aware that this is still a living document and changes will be made to it over time. It is written in a style that may be less accessible than most WM Review content as it is targeted at those with theological/seminary training. It is a very long document and may not be suitable for a general audience.
I'm going to defend Hudson's approach here.
He's written it in the style he has written it, and he has provided the executive summary for those for whom it is too much. He can't be expected to make a third (or fourth, or fifth) adaptation to every possible degree of ability / motivation. If you want the quick snappy piece, that's the summary.
As for the length of critiques vis a vis original works: on the contrary, it can typically take many, many more words to reply to a claim that it took to make the claim.
I'd still encourage Michael to move his thesis to the front above the beginning of his critique of "grain of incense" but given that is intended for intellectuals and priests it is written appropriately.
I would still like to see some smaller works using language that is more accessible to the general public to spread the message. A lot of people will give up too soon.
That's not Hudson's responsibility or my own. Neither he nor I are always writing for the general public. And we don't have time to do everything.
I appreciate your comments and also your pointing out of typos but try not to boss people around please!
Hi Sean,
I actually had this conversation with Michael in private before my last comment. The reason for his work being put out with perhaps less polish than he'd like (he is planning further changes) is he is expecting a very big life change and he wanted to get the work to readers before then, which I completely empathise with. He sees it as a work in progress which is part of the reason why he published it on google drive where he can edit it further.
He agreed that the location of the thesis was a bit disjointed, which is what my original comment related to. It is really important for the first chapter in any work to be well written as it sets an expectation for what might follow. What I read from then on is much better.
I think the biggest challenge for me with approaching this article is it differs in style a lot from your own which is more accessible to the general public, probably because you have experience writing for the news media. This article is clearly targeted at an intellectual audience with seminary or theological training and is written in a style suitable for that audience, but more challenging for a general audience. I think a note on this so readers have this expectation in mind would be helpful as the style of this article is so different to the content that usually released on the WM Review. Also noting that it is still a work in progress would be helpful too.
I'm sorry if you feel like you're being bossed around. That was never my intention. Just because I'd like to see some smaller works on this topic doesn't mean that I expect Michael or you to write them. With Michael's life change I certainly don't expect to see him expanding upon this further anytime soon. I'm pretty sure he understands this. This isn't a topic you've been willing to write on personally, which is why I'm grateful Michael does.
In my opinion smaller more accessible articles would be helpful in expanding the reach of the message being conveyed. I think that is a very valuable thing when many NUCs think they live in sacramental deserts, but they in fact don't. But if a document like this can get the priests and bishops who follow NUC teachings to abandon them, then it would more than achieve its goal.
Anyway, I've edited my public criticisms and I hope they are fairer than the wording I chose previously.
I would argue against the notion that those masses offered during Roncalli and Montini prior to the adoption of the "una cum" position by +Bp. Des Lauriers, et al., did not constitute a defection of anything; they were simply at worst offensive and at best not pleasing to God. Nothing went away at that time or ceased to exist; the ability to offer the sacrifice was still very much present. It is not different from the extended vacancy of the Holy See and the various episcopal sees, which have not ceased to exist, but are simply unoccupied.
The Eastern schismatics have valid sacraments, particularly a valid liturgy; however, their offerings are offensive due to their schism and heresy. If that impediment was removed, however, and they returned to the Catholic Church, then there would be no issue. Nothing has ceased in the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome.
I think the argument that the Church universally offering worship that is “at worst offensive and at best not pleasing to God” is what constitutes the defection.