Vintage: Father Cekada on Church Unity
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2025
- In this sermon from 2009, Father Anthony Cekada (1951-2020) discusses the pernicious Angelo Roncalli (anti-Pope John XXIII) and Church Unity in light of then-current events surrounding anti-Pope Benedict XVI.
Many thanks, as always, to our good friends at traditionalcatholicsermons.org.
9:45 Fr. Cekada (God rest his soul) was extremely gifted, well studied and formally trained by +Lefebvre in Thomistic theology. I remember watching him methodically debunk flawed claims about supplied jurisdiction and de Castro Mayer and what not..., and he always corrected those who were just not real thinkers with grace and patience, even if it was not appreciated and obstinately rejected, even when he was cruelly and disrespectfully attacked, and even accused of being a heretic, and treated as if he was just another guy at a local bar and not Another Christ as he truly was and still is. He was fallible like all humans but he was kind, gentle and a real apostle of the Church for our nutty times and so humourous. I miss Fr. Anthony Cekada. Requiescat in pace.
May Our Lord gives rest on his soul🙏🏻
Thank you so much, Kevin. Never enough video of our good Father Cekada!
Thank you.
"Stupid bishops". I love his bluntness.
Thank you for the wonderful video.🙏🏻
🙏
You have a typographic error in the description below the video. *Roncalli, not Roncolli.
Thank you! It's fixed.
He would not had liked the intro's music.
@@iamnotafraidiwasborntodoth5688 I think he was a well-trained organist and maybe choir director in addition to his more religious training.
So sad that the ambiguities of Vatican II still confuse traditional-minded Novus Ordo people: supposedly 2,000 hierarchs could not err, be confused and a "pope" sign off on it. 🙇♀️🤢
17:03
17:43
Problem is,our clerics don't have jurisdiction or an office in the Church. Until they sign on the dotted line w the Novus Ordo,we should work together much as possible!!!
My humble opinion. I don't think the Novus ordo holds any office or jurisdiction in the church either. one thing I would like to know is why are all the traditional catholics afraid of the white smoke of 1958. It seems to me like that is an event at the end of a true Catholic Pope's reign, and the beginning of an anti popes reign that we can point to. and yet nobody wants to investigate it.
Taylor Marshall just repeated (again) that Bellarmine said a false pope must be declared. Do you have a clear, short listing of all such errors in a video?
T.M. also admitted to validity of the Thuc line in a recent video. He's on his way,pray for his moral temporal spiritual well being.
Novus Ordo Watch is probably your best resource for understanding and refuting the typical arguments of the Recognize-and-Resisters. Here are a couple of links:
novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/
novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book4-chapters6-7/
A search on "Bellarmine" at novusordowatch.org will provide a treasury trove of good information.
Also, here is a video by Father Dominic Radecki that lays out the Sedevacantist position as clearly as almost any video you'll find:
th-cam.com/video/B8tRXZxRYM8/w-d-xo.html
We need to pray for the likes of Taylor Marshall. We at Catholic Family Podcast are inclined to ascribe basic good will (and bad theology) to him.
@@catholicfamilypodcast5501 I know. I mean a simpler video on the mistakes re. true ecclesiology vs hermeneutic of continuity in Vatican II council (whereby other "Christian churches" are treated as Christian, not solely Catholicism), and re. Bellarmine on declaring heresy vs unity of faith and ordinary magisterium allowing all to recognize heresy.
It would be good to have a simple, visualized (images, cute, like Fr Cekada's messages), kind video on these, for sharing for initial clarity for Novus Ordoites.
❤
Interesting, because St. Robert Bellarmine teaches the exact opposite. That a heretic pope would not have to be declared to lose office. It’s all a moot point because Bergoglio was barred by divine law from the papacy because he was a heretic prior to election.
St. Robert Bellarmine [1610]
- “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.”
“Next, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they even lack all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity ipso facto. Cyprian says: “We say that all heretics and schismatics have not power and right...” -St. Robert Bellarmine
"...heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment,...that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it.”
-St. Robert Bellarmine
“For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.”
-St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, De Romane Pontifice
St. Robert Bellarmine:
“This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope...The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member...and a manifest heretic is not a Christian...therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.”
Saint Robert Bellarmine: "A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope."
Also, who has authority in the Church? Certainly not those who accept V2 and promulgate and say the Novus Ordo “Mass”.
That is how TM would easily be refuted.
Pope Innocent III, taught (Sermo IV. IN CONSECRATIONE PONTIFICIS), “Since the Roman Pontiff has no other superior than God … who could cast him out or trample him under foot?… But he ought not vainly flatter himself because of his power… because the less he is judged by men, the more he is judged by God. I say the less, because he can be judged by men, or rather he can be shown to be already judged, if he should wither away into heresy; because «he who does not believe has already been judged (John III)»” St. Alphonsus, following exactly the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine’s fifth opinion, pronounces on the question of judging a pope, saying: “We answer, that if ever a pope as a private person would fall into heresy, then he would immediately fall from the papacy; for since he would be outside the Church, he could no longer be the head of the Church. Whence in that case the Church would have to not in fact depose him, because no one has power over the pope, but declare him to have fallen from the pontificate.” (Alfonso Maria de’ Liguori, Vindiciae pro suprema pontificis potestate adversus Iustinum Febronium, Torino, 1832, p. 142) He adds, “Pope Symmachus said: The Pope is the supreme pastor, subject to no judgment except in the case of heresy. Tom. 2. Concilior.”
It is in this sense that Ballerini (De Potestate Ecclesiastica, Cap. IX § I no. 5) explains the meaning of the canonical exception of heresy in judging a pope: “In the sacred canons, where the scandals of the Pontiffs are discussed, we read that it is decreed that they are not to be obeyed, nor is their example to be followed, where they act or command anything contrary to the divine law, but they never indicate that they are to be subjected to the judgment of anyone, unless perhaps they are devious from the faith. The exception of heresy is due to the fact that, on account of the heresy itself, falling ipso facto from the pontificate, they would lose their jurisdiction of primacy, as will be explained in the following paragraph.”
Don Pietro Ballerini, who famously followed the fifth opinion of Bellarmine, stated in the following paragraphs that those who follow this opinion, “assert the right of a general council over a Pope deviating from the faith, but whom they propound to be a heretic; because they believe such a Pontiff by the heresy itself to be severed and cut off from the foundation of the Church which is faith, and consequently from the Church itself, and to have utterly fallen from the Pontificate, and in this hypothesis it will be the right of the general council over him, who is no longer the Pontiff, nor does he possess the primacy.” (Ballerini, De Pot. Ecc. Caput IX. §. II. pp. 128-129)* Ballerini adds that this was already the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, whom he cited in a footnote, saying: “(1) Innocent III favours this opinion, in his third sermon writing on the day of his consecration; To such an extent faith is necessary for me, that, while for other sins I have God for a judge, because of the sin which is committed against faith, I could be judged by the Church. See Sylvium in 2. 2. S. Thomæ tom. 3. q. 39. art. 3. conclus. 2.” (De Pot. Ecc. p. 127 footnote 1)
It is in this context that Ballerini explains the meaning of the “exception” to papal injudicability in the case of heresy: “In the sacred canons, where the scandals of the Pontiffs are discussed, we read that it is decreed that they are not to be obeyed, nor is their example to be followed, where they act or command anything contrary to the divine law, but they never indicate that they are to be subjected to the judgment of anyone, unless perhaps they are devious from the faith. The exception of heresy is due to the fact that, on account of the heresy itself, falling ipso facto from the pontificate, they would lose their jurisdiction of primacy, as will be explained in the following paragraph.” In the following paragraphs he explains that by manifesting pertinacity, “he declares himself to be a heretic, i.e. to have withdrawn from the Catholic faith and the Church by his own will, so that no declaration or sentence from anyone would be necessary.” He then adds that the Church’s declaration would only need to be published to stating that, “he by his own will departed,” and, “would declare him to have separated from the body of the Church, and in some manner to have abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold, who is not in the Church.” (Ibid.)
Thus it is also clear from this explanation of the eminent canonist-theologian, and contemporary of St. Alphonsus, exactly what the Holy Doctor was getting at by quoting the Roman Council under Pope Symmachus which taught, “The Pope is the supreme pastor, subject to no judgment except in the case of heresy.” It cannot mean that a true and valid pope can be judged by his inferiors in the case of heresy, because then, contrary to the dogma of the Primacy, the supreme and infallible judge would be judged by an inferior and fallible judge.
Even a century before the solemn definition of the Primacy, Ballerini was explicit on this point that a true and valid pope can never be judged by a council, explaining, “undoubtedly the right of the primacy always remains in reality with a true and legitimate Pontiff, who always, being superior to the whole Church and whatever council by this right of the primacy, is removed from the jurisdiction of those others.” (De Potestate Ecclesiastica Summorum Pontificum Et Conciliorum Generalium, Auctore Petro Ballerinio Presbytero Veronensi, Augustæ Vindelicorum (Augsburg), 1770, p. 132) If the pope could be judged by a council, there would either be two heads (Alfonso Maria de’ Liguori, Vindiciae pro suprema pontificis potestate adversus Iustinum Febronium, Torino, 1832, p. 164.) judging against each other; or, if the council were supreme in such a case by way of exception, then then the dogma which defines that the judgment of all disputes in matters of faith is reserved exclusively to the pope would be erroneous.
Thus, in accordance with the teaching of Bellarmine, Ballerini, St. Alphonsus and Gregory XVI - all of whom based their teaching on the doctrine of Innocent III - it would not be a true pope who would be judged a heretic and deposed by his inferiors; but it would be a false pope, who for reason of his evident heresy, would be judged by the Church to be no pope, because the Church infallibly recognizes the heretic for what he is: an alien, an outsider, an impostor, who is not their shepherd but a heretic: “For such faith the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Church have kept for each other, that they suitably are able to fit together, which the Truth says in the Gospel: «I know my sheep, and mine know me (John X)»: they do not follow the stranger but flee, because they do not know the voice of strangers. The strangers are the heretics and schismatics, which the Roman Church does not follow, but pursues and drives away. They recognize and hear their own, not apostate but apostolic: not Cathar but Catholic, receiving and rendering the conjugal debt, receiving from him the debt of providence, and rendering the debt of reverence.” - Innocent III Sermo III. «IN CONSECRATIONE PONTIFICIS»
Who is the Church that can issue a statement of sede vacante? It is not what some are waiting for...Namely, it is not those who accept Vatican II and the who say and promulgate the Novus Ordo. They have lost authority due to heresy as the Church has taught. Rather, it is those Bishops who profess the entire Catholic Faith without holding to any heresies, i.e Bishop Pivarunas.
"...the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, for...excommunication...that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect" - false...
-Pope Pius VI
Here we see that any declaratory sentence which follows an ipso facto (automatic) excommunication is merely a legal recognition of something which ALREADY exists. If this were not true, the automatic excommunication would be meaningless.