The Grace of Retraction: A Priest’s Public Duty to Truth

 By. Rev. Fr. Thomas T.J. Ayakana Ojeka.

To err is the slip of a seeking mind,
But heresy wills to leave truth behind.
One is a wound that grace can bind—
The other, revolt by heart and design.

1. Preamble: 

On the 4th of July, as a follow up on a quick response to an enquirer I published an article in a catechism format titled “The Cost of Fidelity: Can Sedevacantists Receive Sacraments from the SSPX?” 

Before the day ran out I received a shocking feedback: 

Please forgive me, but you are spreading a dangerous error on a deep moral question.

After a review of the insurmountable arguments there was another reiteration: 

“I think it's certain you erred on this matter and the Church law is clear" 

Yes. It is certain that I erred. I had to un-publish the article on the third day of it's publication and, by then it had gathered a total of 250 views/reads. 

Now, in response to the duty I owe to Truth and fidelity to the immemorial Catholic Faith, I publicly retract my prior position that sedevacantist Catholics must avoid not only the una cum Masses of SSPX clergy but also all other sacraments administered by them - Penance being the case study.

Now, in response to the duty I owe to Truth and fidelity to the immemorial Catholic Faith, I publicly retract my prior position that sedevacantist Catholics must avoid not only the una cum Masses of SSPX clergy but also all other sacraments administered by them - Penance being the case study.

While vigilance remains necessary in times of apostasy and confusion, prudence must walk with justice. My prior counsel—though motivated by zeal for doctrinal purity—exceeded the bounds of Canon Law and approved theological principles, and I now correct it before the judgment seat of truth.

I will also take this solemn moment to make a fraternal appeal to my Fathers, Elder Brothers, and Contemporaries in the Sacred Priesthood—those who, over the decades, have publicly defended positions which, though perhaps held in good faith, have now revealed themselves to be manifestly erroneous.

My hope is that they see in my retraction an invitation—a modest example to consider for the greater glory of God, the exaltation of Holy Mother Church, and above all, the salvation of souls—the salvation of souls, which is the supreme law of the Church.

And even if my appeal should fall on deaf ears—though I earnestly hope it does not—I shall rest in peace of conscience, knowing that I have fulfilled my duty: to Truth, by my retraction; and to Charity, by my fraternal appeal. 

2. The Error

In summary, to the question whether a Sedevacantist can receive the Sacraments from the SSPX? 

Being under the impression that the principle in law that requires prohibiting communication in sacred things with manifest heretics by extension applies to avoiding communication in sacred things with those who remain obstinately in communion with those manifest heretics, my reply was: 

No. Not ordinarily. 

SSPX priests profess union with a false pope and with the ecumenical-synodal structure of the conciliar impostor Church.

Why not? Because sacraments are expressions of unity in faith, and the SSPX’s communion with a false hierarchy is a public contradiction of Catholic truth.

What about emergency? In grave necessity, Confession might be tolerated privately, with caution to avoid scandal and no endorsement of error. Habitual reception is not justifiable. 

The error hiding in this otherwise appealing response I now correct before the judgment seat of truth [cf. 1917 CIC, can. 2261 §2, regarding reception of sacraments from excommunicated or irregularly functioning clergy in cases of necessity].

3. The Provisions of Canon 2261 §2 Of the 1917 Code of Canon Law 

Canon 2261 § 2 states thus: 

The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of § 3, can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking, and then the one who is excommunicate and approached can administer these and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons from the one requesting.

General Meaning and Scope

• Excommunicated priests (vitandi or tolerati) retain the power of orders and may validly administer sacraments.
• The canon permits the faithful to approach such priests who are not “vitandi” or under any declaratory sentence, i.e. “the Tolerati” -tolerated excommunicates; for sacraments for any just cause, not only in cases of danger of death. 
• The just cause include: spiritual benefit, absence of another priest, devotion to a particular confessor or form of the rite, and practical pastoral needs.

As explained by canonists such as Wernz-Vidal, Prümmer, P. Chas Augustine OSB and others, Canon 2261 §2 permits such sacramental recourse for any just cause, and without interrogation of conscience by the minister.

The source of this Code is Pope St. Martin V's Constitution “Ad Evitanda Scandal (1418)” which:  

• Was issued to protect the faithful from being morally or legally obliged to avoid others based on uncertain or undeclared penalties.
• aimed at avoiding scandal, confusion, and unnecessary scrupulosity, especially in times of ecclesiastical turmoil.
• Made an exception for certain crimes that are notoriously committed and incur automatic excommunication by canon law, especially: Sacrilege; Laying violent hands on a cleric. If the offense is so manifest that it cannot be concealed or excused, communion with such a person must be avoided—even without a formal denunciation.

4. Application to the Priests of the SSPX 

In view of the provisions of the Canon 2261 paragraph 2, based on Pope St. Martin V's Constitution, Ad Evitanda Scandala it is to be noted that:

• No SSPX Priest today is under a formal sentence of excommunication or declared vitandus (to be avoided). And there's no obligation stemming from the laws regarding communicatio in sacris, to avoid a Catholic who himself is in communion with heretics or schismatics. I.e. one is not bound to avoid a Catholic merely because: attends una cum Masses; is in communion with SSPX; receives sacraments from priests who recognize heretical popes, unless he obstinately promotes heresy or scandal.
• The SSPX’s actions may constitute the sin of schism—by professing union with the Novus Ordo hierarchy while disregarding its authority—but not the canonical crime of schism, since they are not disobeying the true Catholic hierarchy. 
• The Novus Ordo hierarchy, having defected from the Faith, cannot be the legitimate hierarchy of the Church. Therefore, while the SSPX's position is objectively schismatic, it does not incur canonical censure, as no valid ecclesiastical authority has condemned them, nor are they resisting a legitimate Catholic hierarchy.
• Given that they are truly Catholic and only publicly committing the sin, not delict, of schism, no canonical censures relating to the crime of schism have been validly applied to the SSPX. 
•  Even if the SSPX is formally schismatic, without a formal declaration or sentence, the type Eastern Schismatics labour under, per Canon 2261, Catholics may licitly approach its validly ordained ministers for the sacraments, and the sacrament of Penance would enjoy validity based on the provisions of Canon 209 (which deals with the Church's supplying of jurisdiction common error and doubt) and other principles of law.

5. Caveats And Distinctions 

• Having established Catholics may licitly approach its validly ordained ministers for the sacraments for any just cause, it must be noted too that Catholics should make sure to avert the scandal that may result from this, such as the scandal of an implicit approval of the schismatic modus operandi of the SSPX. 
• Practical steps to avert could include removing any doubt, without imprudence, that one does not submit to or profess communion with the Novus Ordo Church despite approaching SSPX Priests for the sacraments. 
• More so, a distinction must be made between reception of all other sacraments and assisting at Mass.

As Father Cekada brilliantly argued in his excellent work, The Grain of Incense: 

• irrespective of what meaning is ascribed to the una cum phrase of the Canon of the Mass, an active participation at Mass always includes the profession of communion with the hierarchy with whom the Mass is celebrated. 

It is because of this it is intrinsically sinful to assist at the valid Masses of the Eastern Schismatics. 

In the same vein, assisting at Masses said in union with the hierarchy of the Novus Ordo Church is an explicit profession of communion with this non-Catholic sect, a profession the sedevacantist knows it's sinful to make, and for which reason he cannot be excused from sin. 

That some sedevacantists vehemently deny that assistance at such Masses implies this profession, does not still excuse, because the question of liceity, even in doubt, should be resolved in favour of abstaining.

L. Salembier, in his scholarly work titled The Great Schism of the West, attests to the fact that during the Great Western Schism, some Catholics generally avoided Masses said in union with the pope they considered false. And following the principles, irrespective of whether they submitted to the right pope or not, they acted rightly by doing this. 

6. Clarifications Based On Objections 

Objection

The law obliges the faithful to avoid manifest heretics. By extension, this law applies to avoiding those who remain obstinately in communion with manifest heretics.

Response:

The law is clear: unless there's an explicit declaration of censure, there's no obligation to avoid them, and petition for sacraments from then is completely licit.

Objection

Does it mean there is no obligation to avoid both the uncondemned manifest modernists of the Novus Ordo Church and the uncondemned schismatics of the SSPX because censures have not been authoritatively declared by legitimate authority?

Response:

The schismatic SSPX is not in the same category as the Novus Ordo modernists.

 The former are Catholics formally committing the *sin of schism* due to grave errors they hold. They are not committing the crime of schism. The latter are non-Catholics simply so, members of a non-Catholic sect. Canon 2261 applies to the SSPX Catholics, Canon 1258 applies to the members of the Novus Ordo Church who are non-Catholics.

Objection

But the faithful must avoid communicatio in sacris (worship) with manifest modernist heretics because of manifest heresy. Additionally, modernists do not even have valid Orders to validly administer the sacraments.

Response:

The Novus Ordo modernists are non-Catholics. Different rules apply to them. And yes, the absence of certainly valid orders adds an additional reason why they cannot be approached for the sacraments.

7. A Fraternal Appeal 

Attached as “Appendix I” to “My Treasured Mistake” is a poem I had titled “A Catholic Lamentation”. I had expressed a peculiar nostalgia concerning the Proponents of the material Pope thesis as captured in these lines:

Would to God, it be ours to be welcomed to a news of retraction! 

What the truly “best”, says history, boldly made; winning admiration!

Attesting, from the Original wound of ignorance, even the best no exemption can claim. 

While waiting, we wait pacing calmly but surely the gait.

We cannot but toot the plait: 

“How are the valiant fallen in battle,

and the weapons of war perished?! 

How, pray, tell, even those who claim the title “the best”, prey, of such spell?!

Providence ordering all things sweetly despite our mistakes has granted me the chance to take the lead in the art of tendering a retraction: doing what I expect of others, perhaps as an example for them. 

The sense of the first stanza is clear: 

• There is an expression of a deep yearning.
• Yearning, not for condemnation or argument, but for the joy of witnessing a retraction of error—a true spiritual victory.
• A prayerful hope that men of influence and good will will be moved to correct themselves publicly, to the glory of Truth and the unity of the Church. 
• The truly great in history are not those who were always right, but those who, once shown they were wrong, had the courage to correct it. 
• Even the most virtuous minds may err—not because of malice, but because of the wounded nature of reason due to the Fall. 

Think of St. Augustine affirming 

“I can err; I will not be a heretic.”. 

The first line of the second stanza intensifies and re-echoes the deep longing. 

• It tells how the faithful remnant awaits justice, truth, and repentance—not idly, but with calm persistence, adhering to the narrow and sure path.

“We cannot but toot the plait” gives the sense that though waiting patiently, there comes a time when silence is no longer charity. The entanglement, the errors, must be sounded out, exposed, and addressed.

With King David's words we are forced to mourn the fall of valiant figures in the war for truth—who have succumbed to manifest error, contradiction, or compromise and are defending it with all vigor. 

It is still in the spirit of this Catholic Lamentation that I take this moment to appeal to my Fathers, Elder Brothers, and fellow Priests: I beg you, with the love of the Church in our hearts, to look again—calmly, dispassionately, and prayerfully—into the serious objections that have, over the years, been raised against certain positions long held or defended. Not to shame, but to seek light. Not to triumph, but to save souls.

If such reexamination is undertaken, it would naturally lead, as it has in my own case, to a response born of duty—duty to Truth and fidelity to the immemorial Catholic Faith. That duty compels one to retract fundamental theses, along with their supporting arguments, which, whether taken individually or together, are gravely erroneous and constitute a scandal to the Catholic cause—especially in the face of Modernist intruders and impostors who prey upon our internal contradictions.

We speak here of propositions which, individually or collectively, undermine the very essence of the Papacy—its supremacy, authority, and infallibility—and with it, the Church’s Unity, Infallibility, Indefectibility, and Visibility. 

8. Saintly Models

Addressing God, I wrote on my ordination prayer card

“I am nothing; I have nothing; I can do nothing; I am worth nothing without You; and I desire nothing but Thy grace and glory…”. 

I chose those lines, not for their rhythmic appeal, but as an expression of my deepest conviction about myself. 

Indeed, for those who were my lecturers while I was your seminarian who fled the Novus Ordo Impostor church, recalling my rather peculiar low-slow mode (low, in not making it to the “A” students list; slow, in catching up as desired), you would not be totally wrong to consider me “nothing” before you, and I do not claim to be anything before you nor do I aspire to be anything before you: I am aware of my nothingness. Who am I to urge you to follow my example in the art of retraction! What impudence!

I can at least invite you to look at the examples of those raised by Holy Mother Church to the Altar as our models in matters of Faith and morals, those you all in one way or the other look up to with edifying admiration. A number of them, at some point, made public retractions for an array of reasons. 

• St. Augustine of Hippo

Retracted earlier theological imprecisions and mistaken interpretations from his writings in his book Retractationes.

Examples include corrections on predestination, time, and his understanding of creation.

• St. Thomas Aquinas

Near the end of his life, declared: “All that I have written seems like straw compared to what has now been revealed to me.”

While not a formal retraction of specific errors, it expressed humility before the mystery of God.

• St. Peter the Apostle

 Publicly retracted his denial of Christ with bitter tears (Luke 22:62) and was later confirmed in his office (John 21).

Also corrected by St. Paul for dissimulation in Antioch (Gal. 2:11–14).

• St. Cyprian of Carthage

 Corrected his initial belief that heretical baptism was invalid, later refining his position in line with Church authority.

• St. Hilary of Poitiers

 Admitted in his writings that at first he misunderstood some terms used by Eastern bishops during the Arian crisis and adjusted accordingly.

• St. John Chrysostom

Modified his approach to certain disciplinary matters and clarified earlier pastoral actions that were misapplied or misunderstood.

• St. Vincent Ferrer

Initially supported the antipope Benedict XIII during the Western Schism; later withdrew obedience when it became clear he was not the true pope.

• St. Catherine of Siena

At first hesitant about Gregory XI's return to Rome, later fully supported it and corrected her tone and manner in certain letters, as shown by later revisions.

• St. Francis de Sales

Revised earlier statements in his Catholic Controversy when he saw they could be misunderstood, clarifying nuances in later sermons and correspondence.

• St. Alphonsus Liguori

Corrected various moral positions in later editions of his Theologia Moralis, showing constant refinement of precision and theological caution.

• St. Robert Bellarmine

Clarified and corrected some early views on the temporal power of the pope after deeper study and controversy.

Something of interest is that no deep study is required to come to terms with the manifest errors to which the glorious names of eminent Clergymen in the Traditional Catholic Movement are associated. Perhaps that is precisely why some of us are able to discern it: only an informed Catholic common sense animated by good will seems to do the trick. 

Yes, the great tragedy is not that the enemies of truth persist, but that those considered its greatest champions defend a compromise with error—visible to any faithful Catholic of good will.

In every saint who retracted—Augustine, Cyprian, Vincent Ferrer, Catherine of Siena—we see not weakness, but heroic docility to truth; a virtue more urgent today than ever, when humility before the Faith, not pride of party, must be the banner of those who would truly stand for Christ and His Church.

9. Summing Up: An Unfruitful Servant

As an Unfruitful Servant, I have done, in conscience, what I know my job to be -  

• retracting my error that the truth of the canonical provisions of Holy Mother Church may shine for the consolation of poor, needy souls whose salvation is her ultimate law.
• Extending a fraternal appeal to all to whom it may concern for the boon of the Catholic cause in the face of Modernist imposture and apparent revolution in permanence.

I extend my heartfelt gratitude to those whose swift and charitable intervention was instrumental to my discerning the serious error enshrined in my good-willed counsel to a seeking soul. 

Oh, that the appeal to calmly, dispassionately, and prayerfully consider the grave objections long raised against certain positions—zealously being held and defended—be given the earnest attention it so rightly deserves! Then shall we all be confirmed in the Truth, standing as one in a united front against the most pernicious of the Church’s adversaries, who cloak themselves in the imposture of fidelity.

Yes, whatever proposition undermining the very essence of the Papacy—its supremacy, authority, and infallibility—and with it, the Church’s Unity, Infallibility, Indefectibility, and Visibility must, in conscience before God, be retracted, and, every effort to that effect is not only worthwhile, but truly salutary: 

“For we can do nothing against the truth; but for the truth.” (2 Corinthians 13:8)

Penitent like penitent Magdalene, I urge all promoting whatever proposition undermining the very essence of the Papacy—its supremacy, authority, and infallibility—and with it, the Church’s Unity, Infallibility, Indefectibility, and Visibility to penitence: retract, yes, retract! +A.M.D.G. 

~~~ E Signed: 

Rev. Fr. Thomas T.J. Ayakana Ojeka

• St. Francis Catholic Church (in the Catacomb), Alifokpa, Yala Local Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria. July 22, 2025, feast of St. Mary Magdalene, Penitent.