Pope Fictions 1: Nestorian Story Time
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ต.ค. 2024
- by Rev. Anthony Cekada. The first in a series of shorter videos taking on SSPX's two anti-sedevacantist musketeers, John Salza and Robert Siscoe. Their errors on the case of Nestorius refuted by Cardinal Billot.
![[DRIP] ‘Love, Maybe’ PREVIEW](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U7hwHp95m1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent work, Father Cekada. Your work demonstrates the principle that the Truth does not die. People just need to hear it. Thank you!
Wow. just wow. I came here to dissect this video and comment against it (with facts). You have disarmed me Fr. Cekada.I can't refute your video. Eye opening video. I attend mass in an R&R chapel. However, I do see the incongruences with their theological position.Very eye opening. Thank you
Glad you found it informative. You might also want to check out the video Marcel Lefebvre; Sedevacantist. It's based on the experiences and personal knowledge of some of us who were at Ecône in the early 70s and who actually knew Archbishop Lefebvre personally.
Rev. Anthony Cekada
Although I greatly admire your cordiality (the type that isn't present in the Dimond siblings), it seems that you haven't responded to the claims of the R&R movement in the following regarding Nestorius (quotation from John Salza's website). The same is true when it comes to the Novus Ordo Watch link you provided:
"We proved this by showing that the Council of Ephesus (not individual Catholics) deposed Nestorius, and “stripped him of his episcopal dignity,” three years later. We even quoted the Sedevacantists’ favorite theologian, St. Robert Bellarmine, who explicitly stated that it was “certain” that Nestorius was deposed by the Council of Ephesus.
We further cited the example of St. Cyril of Alexandria, Doctor of the Universal Church, who refused to publicly sever communion with Nestorius before the Church itself rendered a judgment. We then cited a lengthy quotation from Pope Pius XI praising the saint for his actions. We also quoted the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which confirmed the position taken by St. Cyril by declaring, in no uncertain terms, that any layman who severs communion with his Patriarch, before the Church has rendered a judgment, is excommunicated."
On the other hand, John Salza's website has responded to the argument you have displayed in the video by saying the following about Cardinal Billot (along with many other statements) taken from the same article:
"The first thing to note is that, in context, Billot is making a distinction between occult (secret) heresy and public heresy. His point is that an occult heretic retains his jurisdiction, since he remains a member of the Church, whereas a public heretic ceases to be a member of the Church, and hence loses his jurisdiction. This is the same point we have made in previous articles (as well as in the book), and for which we have been criticized by Sedevacantist apologists.
Regarding the statement that one who preaches heresy openly loses jurisdiction, we respond to this by noting that heresy has two elements. There is the material (or objective) aspect, which is a proposition that is directly and unequivocally contrary to that which must be believed with divine and Catholic Faith (not all errors qualify as heresy). There is also the formal (or subjective) aspect of heresy, which is pertinacity of the will. Pertinacity is a person’s conscious and obstinate adherence to the heretical doctrine, when he knows it is contrary to what the Church teaches. Both the matter of heresy (heretical doctrine) and the form of heresy (pertinacity) can be public or occult (secret). For a person to be a public heretic, both must be public. And both must be established by the Church (the crime of heresy) before a prelate ceases to be a member of the Church and loses his office."
scanner La Jolla hi there. Do you live in La Jolla, CA? and if so, surely you have found the CMRI parish, Our Lady of Fatima?
Very good video. Thank you Father. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Thanks Father Cekada....we appreciate your hard work...to help us keep the faith
1:07 As a Swede and as a Catholic, I am very thankful that I declared him NOT my Pope day when I heard of his double pseudocanonisation.
Scania had 300 Catholic Churches, many of which were torn down to give building materials to Malmöhus Slott where I spent hours in my childhood (nice historic and military historic museum, gorgeous natural museum). That was of course outside Sweden, but I think Bergoglio is heading precisely for Lund, which is Scania and also back then outside Sweden - in fact 30 km from Malmö, I walked from Mmö to Lund successive summers when bringing back and reborrowing Summa Theologica from the University library.
And in Ystad (two hours by train from Malmö, somewhat longer from Lund since you pass by Malmö) a Franciscan convent got a martyr for the superior trying to argue and getting an axe in his head. Nice reformation to celebrate! Not.
Fr Cekada worked tirelessly to destroy these mythical stories circulating among trads. God bless him and may he rest in peace.
Thank you so much for the videos. We really need to talk more and more about this issue. Keep making them. They really are helping.
This video is powerful!
Because of the harm to his subjects, a public heretic automatically loses his jurisdiction!
I have only ONE issue with this thesis concerning papal office: Bellarmine's use of "pertinatious" as a descriptor. Pertinatious infers that a person has been corrected, and persists in their error.
Since VII, there has been very little correction of papal claimants or even bishops on the errors of V2 or linked errors spouted daily. I mean, when JPII did that abominable Assisi thing, Ratzinger told him it had terrible optics and was a bad idea...not that it was contrary to the Catholic Faith.
So John 22nd lost his office the moment he preached heresy regarding the beatific vision?
Excellent. Salza and Siscoe don’t know what they’re talking about.
Pope St Celestine didn’t say that Nestorius and his supporters were _deponendi_ (to be deposed), he said that they were _removendi_ (to be removed). In the same way Mr Jorge Bergoglio doesn’t require to be deposed, just removed.
He needs to be kicked out of St Peter’s unceremoniously, and fake Catholics like Salza and Siscoe need to stop warring against Divine Law.
Timotheos Petros
That is ridiculous. The very definition of "depose" is to be "removed from office [sometimes] suddenly and forcefully".
So to say that Pope Francis doesn't need "to be deposed, just removed" is a self contradictory statement.
If you actually read John Salza/Robert Siscoe's articles, you'd see that they address Cardinal Billot, but you'd also see that Novus Ordo Watch and Fr. Cekada do NOT address their claims on Robert Bellarmine, First Ephesus etc..
@@dioscoros No, there is a distinction between the terms. To depose infers the person has legitimate authority and said authority is being removed from the person and the office is vacant. "To remove" doesn't necessarily have that clarity, as it simply means to physically remove. There is a lack of precision in "to remove". It could mean the individual is illegitimately occupying a space, and thus has no authority, it could mean the person is physically occupying a place and has been physically removed, or it could mean that a person was actually deposed.
Please increase the volume on your videos. I have the volume turned up all the way and it's still hard to hear. Thanks.
+jabba-no-be-wanna ! Thanks for letting me know. I use a Mac, and it seems fine when I listen to it myself. I'll ask one of our parish tech wizards.
+jabba-no-be-wanna ! I have the same problem too...
+jabba-no-be-wanna ! Interesting - on my PC the volume is sufficient. Seems fine here as well.
+jabba-no-be-wanna !
I noticed the same thing when I heard it.
Fr. Cekada, as a sedevacantist yourself, may I ask you this question;
Who were or who was the last pope before the cathedra of St. Peter became vacant?...
Thank you in advance for your reply.
Pius XII
@@WorkofHumanHands
Thank you so much...God bless you Fr. Cekada
Fr. Cekada: Why did you blatantly rip-off the title of the wonderful book by Patrick Madrid entitled "Pope Fiction" for this video?? Please give credit to Mr. Madrid. Thank you.
Never heard of it! But in any event, book titles are not in themselves considered proprietary.
@@WorkofHumanHands Fr. Cekada, Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply. Do you mean to say that you came up with that title on your own? If it is in reference to the 1994 film "Pulp Fiction," then one should ask why someone of the Traditional Faith would even bother to acknowledge such blasphemous cinematic dreck.
Also, you should know that Pope Benedict XV praised Dante Alighieri's work "The Divine Comedy" (which states that 4 specific popes are in Hell) in his 1921 encyclical "Praeclara Summorum." For a Vicar of Christ to praise such a work that claims 4 other "Vicars of Christ" are now in Hell is an outright heresy. Perhaps you should claim Benedict XV as the first "heretical" pope , or was it Pope Pius XII, whose 1943 encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu" encouraged higher criticism of the Holy Bible (thus, making it the first "modernist" encyclical of all time) made him the first "heretical" pope?
Yup -- all on my lonesome.
Did you know that Pius X used snuff?
@@WorkofHumanHands Fr. Cekada, I love your St. Gertrude The Great Mass Simulcasts and am thankful once again that you responded to my comment in a prompt and courteous way. I've been listening to your talks for many years now, which I have personally downloaded from traditionalcatholicsermons.org and I also plan on reading your book "Work of Human Hands" in the near future.
You might also try the summary chapter videos posted on this site. They give you a little overview of main points. God bless you.
3:45 or sth.
At least more recent post-V2 popes heretics before ...
Taking this a bit back in years.
"Paul VI" I recently read had argued there could be obiter dicta in the Bible.
If Council of Florence used four humours of the body as an argument why four generations are enough from latest common ancestor to marry (I suppose it was Florence) - is it just infallible that four generations are enough and is "four humours" an obiter dictum, or are four humours also covered?
Obviously, since Florence was infallible in its formal decisions, and the formal decision was to shorten the length of genealogy necessary to know for avoiding incest, one could argue four humours is an obiter dictum.
But to transfer this to Bible is to lower inerrancy to just infallibility. Making the Bible the word of men edited by God, like infallible Church teaching, and not the word of God.
So, Montini was (if he had maintained this theory) a heretic before "election".
For Roncalli, I know less, but I shouldn't be surprised.
For Pacelli ... how about his councelling around CIC 1917? What had council of Vienne, 1313, said about defending the taking of usury?
The reason of the reason leads us to reason that the reasoned reason is valid as quoted by Pope Penis the 69th. His latin commentary of the greek which comes to us by way of the 1st century scholar lord douche of baggatelli. Therefore all can see that what I say is always right because if its not I'll hold my breath and cry.
With all due respect, I (a canonist) find it impossible to accept Father Cekada's sedevacantist position. From a theoretical point of vue, it is always necessary some sort of declaration by the Cardinals that the Pope became formally heretic. Why? A conclave must be gathered in order to replace such Pope. So, the gathering must be explained by the Cardinals to the faithfuls, otherwise it would end up being a source of confusion and most probably null and void. That explanation will work as the declaration that the Pope became formally heretic.
(P.S.: -- I'm not using technicalities in order to be understood by everyone.)
This objection is answered at 12:30 in the video Stuck in a Rut: th-cam.com/video/1c_JL8_Wa-k/w-d-xo.html
Rev. Anthony Cekada - I fail to understand in what way that goes against what I wrote, all the more so since it is not clear whether you say there that a judicial trial should be conducted against the heretical Pope. Even Suarez -- whom you mock without reason -- never taught that. First, 'Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur'; second, the penalty is 'latae sententiae': that's why I wrote "declaration", not "sentence".
Be that as it may, the problem stands. The heretical Pope must be replaced. In order to replace him, a justification must be provided to the faithfuls, otherwise the replacement would be irrational and, thus, null and void.
By the way, on behalf of Suarez, I will respectfully take the liberty to draw your attention to what he really wrote in 'De Fide', disp. X, sect. VI; and ask you to cross it, for instance, with F. Spanneda, 'L'ecclesiologia di Francesco Suarez', Gallizzi, Sassari, 1937, pages 82-84.
Happy Easter!
(P.S.: -- My comments should not be taken as some kind of support to the Salza & Siscoe book. As far as I'm concerned, it's not at all a good book.)
You are conflating two things: (1) The loss of papal office (or authority) that occurs automatically by DIVINE law through public heresy and (2) The legal declaration that the papal office is vacant which, under ECCLESIASTICAL law, must take place before the cardinals (assuming there ARE any true cardinals) can proceed to fill the vacant office with another pope.
Number (1) automatically knocks the heretic out of office, and number (2) in not a requirement for the loss of office to occur; it is merely a canonical requirement for filling the office again.
Rev. Anthony Cekada - (1) No, it doesn't. By Natural Law, the Pope has the right to defend himself from the imputation of heresy. By the same Law, he has also the right to recant himself from his heretical statement (like John XXII did in his deathbed).
Hogwash. The near-unanimous opinion of dogmatic theologians after Bellarmine who addressed the issue of a publicly heretical pope teach that the loss of office is automatic, and this by DIVINE law. You've simply made something up.
What is public heresy? Kissing a Koran and never recanting? Or writing that through the incarnation Jesus , in a specialty way, is united with every man? Or, not denouncing dignitatus Humanae as heretical and contradicting church teaching?
Do you Fr Anthony Cekada accept Pope Francis as the Head of the Church? If not, you have no Pope??
Walter Roberts I don’t.
@Leonardo's Truth 😂😂
It’s not the first time we haven’t had a Pope and it won’t be the last.