by Rev. Anthony Cekada. Reply to Robert Siscoe's Feb. 21, 2017 Remnant article on the supposed "error" of Pope Celestine III as "gotcha" text against sedevacantism.
Fr. Cekada, praying for your full recovery, hope you are feeling better. Keep making your very well informative videos, so that we can see them around the world (living in Asia for 6 years now). God, bless.
Mischief that our Lord Jesus appreciates, ever since John XXIII the Church was infiltrated with the mundane and heretical; however you remain a true apologetic of the faith and a voice of sanity.
Thank you so much for this video, father! A couple weeks back someone in the R&R camp sent me Siscoe's Celestine III article in response to something I had posted. I could see that the article misrepresented both Scripture and Innocent III, but wasn't competent to nail them on many of the other issues. You have done so admirably!!
Dear Rev. Cekada. You look very well in the video. I had seen you were battling illness some time back in a mighty way. I am happy to see that you won that battle and hopefully you have won the war! I so enjoy your discussions on Sedevacantism. I wanted to ask what the Sedevacantist camp (particularly yourself) hold regarding the Eastern Orthodox, non-Latin rite churches. Do they possess valid worship and could you and others worship there. If this question was already covered, please refer me to that video and i apologise for wasting your time. Thank you again for your work and congratulations on your battle with illness.
The Eastern Orthodox do have valid sacraments. However, since they are in schism, they cannot be approached for sacraments, other than for confession in the case of death. And they deny the sacraments to non-Orthodox, so it's really not an option.
Father, you must enjoy making these videos as much as I like seeing and hearing them!! Mr Siscoe seems hell-bent on searching for, and pouncing on what he thinks are "gotchas"...only to be shot down in flames time and time again. If Mr Siscoe wants to become a credible Catholic author he should stop, go back to square one and learn the Catholic Faith instead of constantly making a fool of himself. In the meantime...I will continue to look forward to further videos. Good to see you back, Father!
Albert, a former Kelly helper......in case you are wondering who Ace was (and old handle when I crewed helos....the bluenote is because I like the blues...some of it anyway lol)
Thank you, Father Cekada! It is pretty hard to argue with logic. Well, that is, if your eyes are not on the marble halls, purple buttons, and grand bell towers.
El Padre Dominico Garrigou-Lagrange, basándose en Billuart para su razonamiento, explica en su tratado De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) que un Papa herético, aunque ya no sea miembro de la Iglesia, puede seguir siendo su cabeza, porque lo que es imposible en el caso de una cabeza física es posible (aunque anormal) para una cabeza moral secundaria.
Everything started in 1929....and the 8 Kings in Revelation explains it. Pope Francis is the 8th and is of the 7th Reign ( the 7th Reign which is Benedict XVI) Rev 13 and Rev 17. The woman sitting on the Beast is a city. Vatican City State. Fr. Cekada....Im I wrong?
Take note, Our Lady asked for the consecration of Russia in that year. Several years later it wasnt done. Jesus then invoked the example of the King of France. Lookup Sister Mary Margaret. 2029 will be a year of Revolution and persecution!
Father, I have a question, forgive me if this is not the right time to ask such a question but I am confused about something. This concerning Baptism of Desire and Blood as in 1888 Father Michael Mueller wrote a book called Catholic Dogma: Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Omnino Salvatur and well, Fr. Mueller seems to write in favor of Feeneyism before Fr. Feeney was even born. So Father my question is, if Baptism of Desire and Blood are doctrine as taught by ordinary magisterium then why did a priest write against it and prefered the rigorist interpretation of the Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus. I am sort of a Feeneyite as you and other priests and bishops you know would call me but I am drifting more towards believeing in Baptism of Desire and Blood but well, this book causes problems for me. Forgive me for the wall of text but I am just concerned. If you do answer thank you Father and God Bless you!
Also sorry about the wall of text, and if you have adressed the matter of the book before I would like to know where and if you could provide a link. Thanks, and again sorry for the wall of text and I guess demands of you. Thanks again.
I'm afraid you misinterpreted what Mr. Siscoe wrote. He did not present the objection of Bellarmine as being Bellarmine's own opinion. This is evident if you read the very next sentence where he explains how Bellarmine REFUTED the objection. Here the sentence that follows: "Bellarmine goes on to defend Pope Celestine from the accusation of heresy by essentially arguing that the matter had not yet been solemnly defined (“the whole matter was still being thought out”) and by noting that Celestine did not intend for his erroneous judgment to be an ex-cathedra definition (he “responded with what seemed more probable”).
Richard Ross I don't think so. Siscoe leads the quoted passage with, "Commenting on the case of Celestine and the above citations specifically, Bellarmine wrote:"
Thanks for your comment. Mr. Richesson is right, though: Mr. Siscoe's introductory sentence leaves a clear impression that what follows is Bellarmine talking. Another priestly colleague of mine arrived at the same conclusion independently. If Mr. Siscoe's fuzzy writing in controversies doesn't convey what he actually means, I can't be expected to get out a Rosetta Stone to decipher him.
If you read Siscoe's second article on the case of Celestin, in response to Father Kramer, it is clear that I was right. He provided a long quote from Bellarmine refuting the accusations of heresy leveled against Celestine. This leaves no doubt that he did not present the objection Bellarmine provided as if it was Bellarmine's one opinion. remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3067-robert-siscoe-responds-to-fr-kramer-concerning-the-case-of-celestine-iii
As you responded to Una Cum post, you may have seen my debate with Introibo on licitness (and if licit, obviously needed and valid) of an emergency conclave. It seems Aegidius Dorsch of as far as I know happy memory had said sth to the effect that in absence of cardinals in a sedevacancy, the thing to do would be to have an imperfect general council. Would he not have been thinking of a thing more like this? Suppose Siri had been accepting papacy, 1958 or even 1963, suppose "Russia" would have nuked the Vatican, with all cardinals, KGB agents murdering any and every cardinal not on the conclave. Pope dead, cardinals dead. BUT, still lots of bishops named by Pius XI, Pius XII, who were still generally Catholic. Ergo, an episcopate like that could have performed an imperfect general council, etc. In other words, was David Bawden between 1987 and 1990 not dealing with a situation not totally foreseen, and in which his measure would have at least probable chances of being correct? I think so, but I am a layman, and while now and then reading St Augustine and St Thomas (and NOT taking objections for his actual positions, but as problems on which he would have more to say in "ad primum" etc), I am NOT very widely read in works like that of Aegidius Dorsch.
Hans-Georg Lundahl I agree with you and the Traditional Bishops need to patch up their differences and elect a Pope. Bishop David Bawden was thinking properly decades ahead of everyone. The only problem I can see happening is one or 2 Bishop's becoming disgruntled and declaring an entire new Sedevacante. This happened with Palmar De Troya. There are literal Sedevacantist chapels within the Palmar De Troya movement. Another option would be all the Traditional Bishop's conditionally cross ordaining/consecrating each other and allowing laymen to attend any local Traditional chapel. The SSPV seem to be the ones with the biggest chip on their shoulder.On my few visits to the local SSPX chapel,the priests had absolutely no problem with the Thuc line. One of the SSPX priests encouraged me to attend the local Thuc line chapel as much as possible.
Why do we have to even deal with these questions? Why has the modern Church forced us into this discussion? Do they just not care? Can there be absolutely no clarity in our world whatsoever? When these prelates who compromise tradition say and do confusing things, do they even care? All of this does great harm to the novice Catholic. Before I discovered the TLM, I had NO concept that the mass was even a sacrifice! I pray that events and circumstances clear much up soon!
The issues that you're raising will be solved when the neo catholics that defend Vatican II give up their pride, arrogance and cognitive dissonance and admit that Vatican II IS NOT a legitimate Council.
I've still never gotten over the amount of arrogance it takes to even title a book that equates Sedevacantism with modernism. Maybe I'm just missing what they actually meant by "Modern Errors". I'd love it if they could please point out (aside from is there a pope in Rome) what theological or doctrinal errors Sedevacantism supports or encourages? Where does Sedevacantism say that "not everything Our Lord talked about or what the church has established was 'spot on'". I find this especially comical when they are basically closet Sedevacantists in practice. "Is there a pope in Rome with authority?" "Well...yes...but...uhhhh. It's tricky" "Sooo, there is a pope but you can't follow him in good conscience?" "Yeah, basically" "Soooo, practically speaking, there is no pope in Rome..." :-o I imagine a kind of scene if Peter had only made it half way out of the boat and then tried to not only scramble back in but also if he had to be physically dragged out of the boat by Our Lord. The boat can easily be the physical representation of the church as a building or a formal structure of humans. Our Lord is supposed to be the focus. It really is okay to jump out of the boat, especially if nobody is taking precautions about keeping it from sinking or catching on fire. I don't have a problem (at the moment) attending an SSPX church but I reeeeaaaaally would rather they didn't store the flint next to the powder. Just saying, you know, as a passenger.
As I pointed out at the end of Dignified Burial, R&R/SSPX reject the Conciliar popes as a living rule of rather and a supreme authority to be obeyed - in practice, a damning judgement against the legitimacy of the Conciliar pontificates. So they're all sedevacantists -- but they just haven't admitted it yet.
With that kind of an identity crisis going on it's no wonder they get so vehement towards the "Sedes" LoL. I did see that video but I don't even pretend to really have even the slightest real idea of what is at the heart of it. As a lay person, all I can see is a group angrily argu-agreeing with the other but calling names as well. LoL Very glad to see that you're recovering, Father. Hope you keep getting better and stronger. God Bless!
RIP Father Cekada.... thank you for your hard work in making the truth none ...
oops... I meant to say known.... not none.
Fr. Cekada, praying for your full recovery, hope you are feeling better. Keep making your very well informative videos, so that we can see them around the world (living in Asia for 6 years now). God, bless.
Thanks. I'm telling everyone that I'm back to 95% of my full mischief-making potential.
Mischief that our Lord Jesus appreciates, ever since John XXIII the Church was infiltrated with the mundane and heretical; however you remain a true apologetic of the faith and a voice of sanity.
+Daniel Jahn Pius XII helped start the chaos.
Welcome back Father! A great video as usual. May God continue to bless your apostolate.
Thank you so much for this video, father! A couple weeks back someone in the R&R camp sent me Siscoe's Celestine III article in response to something I had posted. I could see that the article misrepresented both Scripture and Innocent III, but wasn't competent to nail them on many of the other issues. You have done so admirably!!
Sharp as usual Fr. You look in good shape....so, yes I agree, your ARE back.
Really sharp. All sources well read and quoted in context.
I have just one question: were there any mohammadans hurt during the filming of the failed rocket launch and subsequent explosion?
Almost! Barrack Obama, who was in a bunker just to “the left” as always. Mike was just to his “left.”
God bless you and thank you for your insights. Your book is a must for every Catholic.
Excellent!
Dear Rev. Cekada. You look very well in the video. I had seen you were battling illness some time back in a mighty way. I am happy to see that you won that battle and hopefully you have won the war! I so enjoy your discussions on Sedevacantism. I wanted to ask what the Sedevacantist camp (particularly yourself) hold regarding the Eastern Orthodox, non-Latin rite churches. Do they possess valid worship and could you and others worship there.
If this question was already covered, please refer me to that video and i apologise for wasting your time. Thank you again for your work and congratulations on your battle with illness.
The Eastern Orthodox do have valid sacraments. However, since they are in schism, they cannot be approached for sacraments, other than for confession in the case of death. And they deny the sacraments to non-Orthodox, so it's really not an option.
Puncho and Sisco should take their tequila, “salsa” and chips and just ride into the sunset. Non respondeo!
this is an interesting video Father
Nice hearing from you, James! And from your photo, I can see you think it was definitely a touchdown!
Father, you must enjoy making these videos as much as I like seeing and hearing them!!
Mr Siscoe seems hell-bent on searching for, and pouncing on what he thinks are "gotchas"...only to be shot down in flames time and time again. If Mr Siscoe wants to become a credible Catholic author he should stop, go back to square one and learn the Catholic Faith instead of constantly making a fool of himself.
In the meantime...I will continue to look forward to further videos.
Good to see you back, Father!
Albert, a former Kelly helper......in case you are wondering who Ace was (and old handle when I crewed helos....the bluenote is because I like the blues...some of it anyway lol)
Thank you, Father Cekada! It is pretty hard to argue with logic. Well, that is, if your eyes are not on the marble halls, purple buttons, and grand bell towers.
Father. Do you think that to appoint the Pope in the Canon is a crime of sacrilege and schism?
See my article www.fathercekada.com/2014/04/01/should-i-assist-at-a-mass-that-names-pope-francis-in-the-canon/ God bless you!
El Padre Dominico Garrigou-Lagrange, basándose en Billuart para su razonamiento, explica en su tratado De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) que un Papa herético, aunque ya no sea miembro de la Iglesia, puede seguir siendo su cabeza, porque lo que es imposible en el caso de una cabeza física es posible (aunque anormal) para una cabeza moral secundaria.
Everything started in 1929....and the 8 Kings in Revelation explains it. Pope Francis is the 8th and is of the 7th Reign ( the 7th Reign which is Benedict XVI) Rev 13 and Rev 17. The woman sitting on the Beast is a city. Vatican City State.
Fr. Cekada....Im I wrong?
Tury R vaticancatholic.com has a video on that called is the world about to end.
Take note, Our Lady asked for the consecration of Russia in that year. Several years later it wasnt done. Jesus then invoked the example of the King of France. Lookup Sister Mary Margaret.
2029 will be a year of Revolution and persecution!
Cekada's playful sarcasm is so different feeling from the over the top crudeness I experience on average.
I THINK that's a compliment... ; )
Father, I have a question, forgive me if this is not the right time to ask such a question but I am confused about something.
This concerning Baptism of Desire and Blood as in 1888 Father Michael Mueller wrote a book called Catholic Dogma: Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Omnino Salvatur and well, Fr. Mueller seems to write in favor of Feeneyism before Fr. Feeney was even born. So Father my question is, if Baptism of Desire and Blood are doctrine as taught by ordinary magisterium then why did a priest write against it and prefered the rigorist interpretation of the Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus. I am sort of a Feeneyite as you and other priests and bishops you know would call me but I am drifting more towards believeing in Baptism of Desire and Blood but well, this book causes problems for me. Forgive me for the wall of text but I am just concerned. If you do answer thank you Father and God Bless you!
Also sorry about the wall of text, and if you have adressed the matter of the book before I would like to know where and if you could provide a link. Thanks, and again sorry for the wall of text and I guess demands of you. Thanks again.
@Rincon Ovalle Luis Fernando Not exactly. Archbishop Hay, Orestes Brownson and others were rigorists.
I'm afraid you misinterpreted what Mr. Siscoe wrote. He did not present the objection of Bellarmine as being Bellarmine's own opinion. This is evident if you read the very next sentence where he explains how Bellarmine REFUTED the objection. Here the sentence that follows: "Bellarmine goes on to defend Pope Celestine from the accusation of heresy by essentially arguing that the matter had not yet been solemnly defined (“the whole matter was still being thought out”) and by noting that Celestine did not intend for his erroneous judgment to be an ex-cathedra definition (he “responded with what seemed more probable”).
Richard Ross I don't think so. Siscoe leads the quoted passage with, "Commenting on the case of Celestine and the above citations specifically, Bellarmine wrote:"
Thanks for your comment. Mr. Richesson is right, though: Mr. Siscoe's introductory sentence leaves a clear impression that what follows is Bellarmine talking. Another priestly colleague of mine arrived at the same conclusion independently. If Mr. Siscoe's fuzzy writing in controversies doesn't convey what he actually means, I can't be expected to get out a Rosetta Stone to decipher him.
If you read Siscoe's second article on the case of Celestin, in response to Father Kramer, it is clear that I was right. He provided a long quote from Bellarmine refuting the accusations of heresy leveled against Celestine. This leaves no doubt that he did not present the objection Bellarmine provided as if it was Bellarmine's one opinion. remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3067-robert-siscoe-responds-to-fr-kramer-concerning-the-case-of-celestine-iii
Richard Ross I'm afraid we cannot change Father's will. Thanks for the effort though.
As you responded to Una Cum post, you may have seen my debate with Introibo on licitness (and if licit, obviously needed and valid) of an emergency conclave.
It seems Aegidius Dorsch of as far as I know happy memory had said sth to the effect that in absence of cardinals in a sedevacancy, the thing to do would be to have an imperfect general council.
Would he not have been thinking of a thing more like this?
Suppose Siri had been accepting papacy, 1958 or even 1963, suppose "Russia" would have nuked the Vatican, with all cardinals, KGB agents murdering any and every cardinal not on the conclave. Pope dead, cardinals dead. BUT, still lots of bishops named by Pius XI, Pius XII, who were still generally Catholic. Ergo, an episcopate like that could have performed an imperfect general council, etc.
In other words, was David Bawden between 1987 and 1990 not dealing with a situation not totally foreseen, and in which his measure would have at least probable chances of being correct?
I think so, but I am a layman, and while now and then reading St Augustine and St Thomas (and NOT taking objections for his actual positions, but as problems on which he would have more to say in "ad primum" etc), I am NOT very widely read in works like that of Aegidius Dorsch.
Hans-Georg Lundahl I agree with you and the Traditional Bishops need to patch up their differences and elect a Pope.
Bishop David Bawden was thinking properly decades ahead of everyone.
The only problem I can see happening is one or 2 Bishop's becoming disgruntled and declaring
an entire new Sedevacante.
This happened with Palmar De Troya.
There are literal Sedevacantist chapels within the Palmar De Troya movement.
Another option would be all the Traditional Bishop's conditionally cross ordaining/consecrating each other and allowing laymen to attend any local Traditional chapel.
The SSPV seem to be the ones with the biggest chip on their shoulder.On my few visits to the local SSPX chapel,the priests had absolutely no problem with the Thuc line.
One of the SSPX priests encouraged me to attend the local Thuc line chapel as much as possible.
What about the “Daughters of Trent”
Get them some male tampons and a couple of gags. Then have Maccabees I & II read to them as bedtime stories.
Why do we have to even deal with these questions? Why has the modern Church forced us into this discussion? Do they just not care?
Can there be absolutely no clarity in our world whatsoever?
When these prelates who compromise tradition say and do confusing things, do they even care?
All of this does great harm to the novice Catholic.
Before I discovered the TLM, I had NO concept that the mass was even a sacrifice!
I pray that events and circumstances clear much up soon!
The issues that you're raising will be solved when the neo catholics that defend Vatican II give up their pride, arrogance and cognitive dissonance and admit that Vatican II IS NOT a legitimate Council.
Great video!
Father, when will we have the other videos about the book Work of Human Hands?
I've still never gotten over the amount of arrogance it takes to even title a book that equates Sedevacantism with modernism. Maybe I'm just missing what they actually meant by "Modern Errors". I'd love it if they could please point out (aside from is there a pope in Rome) what theological or doctrinal errors Sedevacantism supports or encourages? Where does Sedevacantism say that "not everything Our Lord talked about or what the church has established was 'spot on'". I find this especially comical when they are basically closet Sedevacantists in practice.
"Is there a pope in Rome with authority?"
"Well...yes...but...uhhhh. It's tricky"
"Sooo, there is a pope but you can't follow him in good conscience?"
"Yeah, basically"
"Soooo, practically speaking, there is no pope in Rome..."
:-o
I imagine a kind of scene if Peter had only made it half way out of the boat and then tried to not only scramble back in but also if he had to be physically dragged out of the boat by Our Lord. The boat can easily be the physical representation of the church as a building or a formal structure of humans. Our Lord is supposed to be the focus. It really is okay to jump out of the boat, especially if nobody is taking precautions about keeping it from sinking or catching on fire. I don't have a problem (at the moment) attending an SSPX church but I reeeeaaaaally would rather they didn't store the flint next to the powder. Just saying, you know, as a passenger.
As I pointed out at the end of Dignified Burial, R&R/SSPX reject the Conciliar popes as a living rule of rather and a supreme authority to be obeyed - in practice, a damning judgement against the legitimacy of the Conciliar pontificates. So they're all sedevacantists -- but they just haven't admitted it yet.
With that kind of an identity crisis going on it's no wonder they get so vehement towards the "Sedes" LoL. I did see that video but I don't even pretend to really have even the slightest real idea of what is at the heart of it. As a lay person, all I can see is a group angrily argu-agreeing with the other but calling names as well. LoL Very glad to see that you're recovering, Father. Hope you keep getting better and stronger. God Bless!