2 thoughts on “The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration: Valid?”
It seems that Louie used Fr. Cekada because that would have been the most likely study that sedavacantist refence to support their conclusion that the new rite is always invalid. Whereas Louis is trying to make the case that the new rite can be valid; and believing that the new right is valid, you can still be a sedavacantist. So, it would make sense in this case to use Fr. Cekada’s study as the focal point.
It would have been nice if the author would have surveyed the conclusions of more than a single authors on such a weighty subject. While I respect the serious scholarship of Fr. Cekada, there are others of equally renowned erudition who come to different conclusions (eg., Fr. Alvaro Calderon, who’s study appears elsewhere on this blog).
It would also be interesting to see +Vigano give the subject a serious treatment.
It seems that Louie used Fr. Cekada because that would have been the most likely study that sedavacantist refence to support their conclusion that the new rite is always invalid. Whereas Louis is trying to make the case that the new rite can be valid; and believing that the new right is valid, you can still be a sedavacantist. So, it would make sense in this case to use Fr. Cekada’s study as the focal point.
It would have been nice if the author would have surveyed the conclusions of more than a single authors on such a weighty subject. While I respect the serious scholarship of Fr. Cekada, there are others of equally renowned erudition who come to different conclusions (eg., Fr. Alvaro Calderon, who’s study appears elsewhere on this blog).
It would also be interesting to see +Vigano give the subject a serious treatment.