The Pope Speaks! YOU Decide!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ต.ค. 2024
- Traditionalists Who Destroy the Papacy by Rev. Anthony Cekada. www.SGGResources. Sedevacantists and conservative Catholics have the same doctrine on papal powers and submission to the pope, while R&R (recognize and resist) traditionalists like SSPX and anti-sede authors like John Salza and Robert Siscoe do not. Fr. Cekada points out the difficulties with R&R.
God bless father Anthony’s soul. Every time I watch his videos I laugh all the time; not about the content that I find theologically brilliant but for his great sense of humor. Thank God he choose him to be a priest but he could be a really great comedian.
Yes, everything he speaks seems very logical to me.
Viva Cristo Rey
I'm becoming very convinced of the sedevacantist/sedeprivationist position. How can I accept a man as pope but consistently disobey him without being a schismatic?
As an impartial but interested observer, I find this an exceptionally good presentation, even by the usually lucid, entertaining standards of Father Cekada -- a gifted and quietly passionate communicator. As a doctoral student of religion, I see this as an expert, crushing blow to the traditionalist-conservative position: the hobbyist, self-styled theology of the opposition is exposed irrefutably here. I predict that, in this debate, THIS contribution will be remembered as the punch they could NOT come back from convincingly.
That dude is definitely smiling on us from Heaven.
His sick burns are sorely missed.
RIP Fr. Cekada
🙏🏼
I am just seeing this video today, and Wowzas. Spot on. This script is a theological rivalry to every country song out there. Well done and presented. It is a mortal sin to mock the Vicar of Christ on earth. AND the Faithful CANNOT submit to a man who constantly DESTROYS, BLASPHEMS, and APOSTATIZES, and the Catholic Faith… even if he is wearing white. He cannot both BE and NOT BE the Pope at the same time. Therefore: Sede Vacante
It's weird. I always imagined priests would be really boring, stuffy, and sleep inducing, but Anthony Cekada somehow comes across as simultaneously earnest and satirical at the same time.
While I'm not religious, I can absolutely connect the dots. The hierarchy must be followed to ensure the legitimacy of the practice, and by allowing people to pick and choose what elements of the doctrine are correct, you have essentially unraveled the hierarchy and can now create your own customized Catholic belief system that suits you perfectly.
The ending makes perfect sense. Essentially, the individual has made himself the pope.
I came here after watching Dennis Wise's documentary "NWO: Communism by the Backdoor" where I was introduced to the term sedevacantist in a segment where he describes the corruption of the Catholic church after Hitler was defeated in WW2.
It is often that non-believers are able to see more clearly our crisis than ourselves. We are in the game and our objectivity is clouded by real-life experiences. Fathers and mothers of big families must choose the safest waterways and roads to travel. Any honest Catholic would be wise to admit this to themselves and observers. Thank you for giving an objective outsider perspective. I will likely be taken to task over the word "objective" but my atheist brother-in-law is often a source of thought-provoking critique of my own beliefs. Through it all, I am still a Traditional SSPX Catholic guilty as charged- by the sedevacantist above. God help us all.
Please, join the Church.
@@charleyberrier SSPX theology doesn't really make sense. Fr Cekada's theology does. I was with SSPX for years myself when there seemed to be nothing else Catholic, but having found priests like Fr Cekada, I could never go back now. SSPX claims the Catholic Church is wrong on faith and morals, this goes against the catechism and the faith.
Thank you, Father, rest in peace!
Wow an amazing video. Thank you farther. May God bless you Fr. Cekada. Please don’t ever allow anyone to ever discourage you. You are a good and godly man. There are many people throughout the world praying for you and the Sedevacantism Church. If you have time. Please pray that God will give me the strength to join your holy church.
these videos are a rich source of sedevacntist teachings, that help me get through my third-shift job. thank you fr. cekada, you're my favorite "sede" haha.
Very good video Father, very good point! I watch it 3 times and the message made the more times I watched it. Make sure you don't, as I did, plug my smart phone into the speakers of my stereo system. I was listening to the video as I drove home and I had to "crank" up the volume to hear you when you were facing the camera and when the scenes when the gavel came down the explosive volume just about blew the window glass out of my car.
This is actually a very interesting argument against the SSPX supporters.
Father Cekada, I don't consider myself sold on sedevacantism, but I love your videos and I respect your position, because it's only motivated by your love for the Catholic Church, and it's a discussion that must be had, because if sedevacantism is true, then it has extremely important consequences for all of us.
Having read all I could find about Oct. 1958 white smoke and Cardinal Siri / Gregory XVII and the Alta Vendita and all that has happened since I can see no other conclusion other than the true Catholic Church is in eclipse which Our Lady of La Salette had said plus Melanie Calvats and Anna Katarina Emmerich foretold. It is for now the only thing that I can see to explain this deviation from what the Church has always taught. Amen
You don't understand Christendom. Or the role of the Pope. Hopefully, because I would suspect the 'sede' clergy do.
Hahahaha “pope like bad dad......no infallible no obey. Ooga booga!” Haha either that part is new and has been subsequently added from my previous viewing, or I completely missed such comedic genius first time around! Hats off, Mssrs. Hats off!
I’m a sedevacantist and Francis isn’t my pope.
Excellent excellent excellent!
Rev. Anthony Cekada:
These topics are , no doubt, very important in many ways. But what chiefly concerns a commoner like myself is; valid sacraments. I need the office of a priest on a weekly basis, at least.
How do I identify a valid priest ?
the pope although somewhat important is not my chief concern.
Father Cekada, you are very special defender of Holy Mother Church against SSPX and FSSP who are in union with an idolator and serial attacker of God
Hello Father. you make some strong arguments. However, how should a Catholic (such as Sergius the patriarch of Constantinople) have treated the heretical advice of Pope Honorius I? History does not regard Honorius as an antipope.
Although I acknowledge that the obedience issue is a major flaw for R&R, Pope Honorius seems to present problems for sedevacantism. The other issue would be in regard to the Western Schism. The ordinations of even the antipopes were considered valid.
Perhaps the issue of what we are facing now is something similar to the Honorius situation (though much more serious) that still needs to be better defined.
+Ascent of Mount Carmel Sergius was already a heretic before he received the private letters of Honorius. Sergius was already corrected by Catholics in Constantinople but was obstinate so he wrote to the Pope to try to win him over. Honorius was not an anti-pope because he was validly elected. In condemning Pope Honorius as a heretic after his death, the III Council of Constantinople made no statement - nor has the Church ever made such a statement - that he remained Pope until his death. The Church didn’t address the issue of whether Honorius lost the Papal Office after falling into heresy; it simply condemned him as a heretic.
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church: “Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church...” [The Catholic Controversy, pp.305-306]
The great Western Schism was hands down the craziest thing that happened to the Catholic Church, imagine what would happen in the end! A counter! "church"
Regarding the GWS, there were simply multiple claimants to the papacy, which caused Catholics to be under different anti-popes. Although a handful of Catholics did know who the true Pope was and rejected the others as anti-popes. The difference between back then and now is this. The anti-popes during the GWS simply did not like the true pope so they started proclaiming themselves "popes" and causing division. HOWEVER, they were not apostates and idolaters like the V2 anti-popes. They were not receiving "blessings" from the "Orthodox" or the Waldensians.
The thing is..please consider speaking about the situation with Cardinal Siri..was John XXIII a true usurper to the Chair?..that's where I'm at and studying presently
Fr Cekada has gone on to his eternal reward.
There's no doubt that Roncali"(John XXIII)"was a fremasonic usurper!
Good to know about the SSPX. I used to support them and still thought they were great.
father thank you again from this is Jason kolinsky the father of Robert Matthew Kolinsky and I don't know what your position on the Terri Schiavo case was but I'm sure you had good intentions to believe in what you believed in and I am a medical nurse I'm a licensed vocational nurse and I see the nursing homes all the time love you Father God bless and please pray for my poor family I need to keep my job and its in danger
An OFF question: how can we gain a plenary indulgence when there is no Pope for whose intentions to pray?
+Thiago Santos de Moraes The law defined this as "the exaltation of Mother Church, the propagation of the faith, the uprooting of heresy, the conversion of sinners, peace and concord among Christian nations and the other need of Christianity." It doesn't cease when there's no pope.
+Rev. Anthony Cekada Thanks, Father.
Rev. Anthony Cekada I came across this only a week ago or so. Relieved that I don't need to refer to the "Apostosy of Prayer" website for my monthly marching orders.
I don't want to be my own Pope. I don't see how a lay person like me can decide between the FSSP, SSPX, SSPV and the Bishop Sanborn Catholics. My feeling is souls made it to heaven under Pope Pius XII before Vatican II so that's seems to be a way, but that doesn't give any guidance to modern issues like "Should I get the Vax?" I was hoping to just go to a Latin mass and not worry about questions about the Pope. Nope!
Let me help you with that.... Bergolio isn't Catholic and novus ordo churches are a new religion!
If you are for the NWO go ahead and get branded with the mystery juice jab.If you have traditional morals that oppose big pharma and the immoral ways that they derive their DNA altering jab juice,then avoid like the plague!
@@williamschultz104 That really doesn't help. There are many voices out there all saying this or that is the true Church without reference to the moral teachings of the Church. You have to look at the teachings of the church and Thomistic Ethics to make these decisions.
Great video
1042 mark easy chair...
Father Cekada kills me
How will Sedevacantists recognise when the chair of St Peter is once again filled?
When vat ll is scrapped,God will make it clear!
When Vatican II is condemned; the true Mass restored and heretics and modernists are excommunicated en masse.
I believe Cekada led many souls astray by promoting sedevacantism. May God have mercy on him.
And yet this video is so great! Easy to follow, witty, damningly spot on.
A pleasure to watch.
How could you say he lead souls astray yet then affirm everything he said is true?
@@Corvus001 He put his sacerdotal finger on the evil of traddies attacking the Pope with vile ad hominems. If the Pope is the Pope then to do such things is a sin, perhaps even mortal.
Cekada obviously didn't accept popes after, what... 1950 or something... so he is perfectly intellectually honest in mocking and rejecting men who claim to be the succesor of Peter. He's schismatically wrong of course, but at least he's consistent.
Cekada is 100% right to mock traddies for their acceptance of the pope as pope while still doing everything to discredit him.
I love the video because it calls out the hypocrisy and intellectual buffoonery of claiming to love "tradition" while spitting in the face of the vicar of Christ.
@@Corvus001
Fr. Cekadda is right that the "Recognize and Resist" position is false
And sedevacantism is false for the same reason
As a sedevacantist you "Recognize" if the Pope is true or false and you "Resist" accordingly.
@@mousakandah5188 That's an extremely false equation and you must know that.
There is a very big difference between recognizing someone as your father and resisting him anyway and recognizing someone isn't your father and resisting that instead, to take an imperfect example.
It fails the logic test.
@@Corvus001
Its really not a false equation
Traditional Catholic teaching never stated that each layman can decide for himself who is the true Pope and who is not
That's because if this is possible then the Magisterium is useless even for Catholics
The entire point of the Magisterium is that if person A has a false view of tradition then the Magisterium corrects him
If this person can say "The Magisterium contradicts my view of tradition, therefore sedevacante" then the Magisterium is useless even for Catholics
I understand your argument for sedevacantism. Where does that leave me in regards to the sacraments?
You can attend Pius V..group
👏👏👏👏👏
Hello Fr. Cekada, I have two questions. Do you accept the liturgical changes that happened from 1948 to Oct 9, 1958(The day Pius XII died)? The first changes came under Pius XII, not John XXIII or Paul VI. Yes, Pius XII's changes were small but you agree that he's a true Pope. Do you accept his changes? If you don't, how are you not R&R. Second Question, if you were Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople in 634 and received the letter from Pope Honorius stating that Christ has one will, do you obey the letter from the vicar or Christ or oppose the errors? I look forward to your answers.
+kaiseruhl First, your no-Pius-XII/"Resistance" analogy is apples and oranges. Using or not using the Pius XII changes hinges on applying or interpreting ecclesiastical law when there's NO LIVING LEGISLATOR around to do it, and certainly no living legislator to "resist.". R&R types, on the other hand, supposedly HAVE A LIVING LEGISLATOR -- i.e. the pope -- whom their in the business of resisting whenever he opens his mouth. Second, Honorius? I think it's time for R&R types to stop recycling the old protestant and Gallican canards.
kaiseruhl I hold the Sedevacantist opinion and our chapel obeys pre-1950 rubrics etc... including fasting after Midnight for Holy Commnion.
good video. I like the music and the bass
Does anybody know who wrote the Tu es Petrus intro music?
So Rev. Cekada, what do you think about the Dimond Brothers of Holy Family Monastery, New York.? You both are on the same page.
They're barking, as the Brits say.
/mhfm are a bunch of whacko nut jobs who have a hair trigger finger for the condemn button. I mean, it's ridiculous. And they'll spout all sorts of stuff to support it - more or less rabid, frothing at the mouth. I can understand passion and fervor, but they go way beyond that, more like crazed zealots.
I'm sedevecantist. And this entire thing is so disturbing to me that we can't get a real pope. I go by the Scripture. 1 Corinthians 5:10-11, that if anyone teaches other than the truth that he is acursed. But what do we do ?
Recognize that sedevacantism is false and you have been lied to that Vatican II "Contradicts tradition"
Its been 65 years
The sedevacante period is not "ending" because there isn't one to begin with
Vatican I and all Orthodox Theologians teach that St. Peter will have perpetual and unbroken line of successors
Do you think 65 years with no Pope is perpetual and unbroken?
please give me an answer is the sacrament's of the FSSPX are valid to receive or not?
yes
It depends on a priest. Some of them are N.O. Priests transferred to sspx without sub conditione ordinations.
If it’s possible that a correct interpretation of “sitting in the temple proclaiming himself God” refers to this theological relativity and humanism being espoused in the Amazon Synod, Bergoglio might actually be the antiChrist. What’s the difference between believing all are saved ( Bishop Barron? ) and the “ you will be like God” deification of the self of the humanists?
Wow, I wonder if Stravinsky stole the music from the intro? Sounds like oedipus Rex chorus...
Excellent! That's precisely one of the crucial fruits of the R&R
Rev. Cekada, I wanted to ask you sincerely what your opinion as a Sedevacantists is on the Eastern Orthodox Church. Are you in favor of the lifting of excommunications and the work towards ecumenism between our two churches? It seems rather strange that devotees of God such as myself would remain completely anathema, while babykiller Nancy Pelosi receives communion with nary a word of protest, but I know the post-Vatican II Popes and their actions are controversial. Thoughts?
+Mark Citadel
Ecumenism is from the devil. The Eastern "Orthodox" need to be converted for unity and salvation.
Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 32), April 13, 1791: "Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter."
Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: "There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff."
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: "Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: "For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, Ex Cathedra: "With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin... Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff."
+77 sb Thank you for the response. The issue I see is that even if the post-Vatican II Church has opened a dialogue with Orthodoxy, it is actually further from Christianity than the Sedevacantists, since it has begun to debase itself in order to seem 'Modern' and appeal to 'Modern' values.
Thanks for the recommendation, Jon! Much appreciated
+Jon I wonder if the author of that book mentions the schismatic "Patriarch" of Romania, Teoctist praying with anti-pope JPII. Also the Greek "Orthodox" Primate of Greece, Christodolus doing the same thing. Or the Assisi event in 1988 in which many different religions all came together and "prayed" including the Eastern "Orthodox"
The anti-popes of the V2 sect, the end times counter "church" deny the Papacy.
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chap. 3, Ex Cathedra: "...the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others... This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation."
anti-pope John Paul II, Common Declaration with Schismatic Primate of Greece, Christodolus, May 4, 2001: “We condemn all recourse to violence, proselytism and fanaticism in the name of religion.”
This is a denial of the following Dogma of the Council of Florence.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, Ex Cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives... and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
anti-pope John Paul II, Message to "Pope" Shenouda III, Feb. 24, 2000: "I am grateful for all you have said, Your Holiness... God bless the Church of Pope Shenouda. Thank you."
This is a complete rejection of the Catholic Faith. Praising a Monophysite heretic!
II Council of Constantinople, 553, Canon. 11: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema."
People who believe John XXII, John Paul I , John Paul II etc... are the Popes - and the Vatican II “Church” is the Catholic Church - then why even bother being Catholic or converting, since their sect venerates and prays with every false religion and every Protestant sect on earth.
It’s quite obvious that the Vatican II sect is the Harlot of Babylon prophesied in Scripture. And contrary to what heretics believe, the fact that ecclesiastical Rome’s apostasy from the Catholic faith in the last days is predicted in Scripture and Catholic prophecy proves rather than disproves the authenticity of the Catholic Church. For the tribulation of the last days will be one which focuses on deceiving the true faithful, and undermining the true Faith.
+Jon
The difference between MHFM and Siscoe, Salza, SSPX etc... Is that MHFM actually go by the Teachings of the Church. There one and only goal is the salvation of souls. Salza and Siscoe chose to write a massive flawed tome instead of debating Bro.Peter. People like Salza and Siscoe are strictly in it for the $$$. James White debates Muslims in mosques in Africa yet will not debate Bro.Peter because he will get obliterated. Long story short some people can see the truth from a mile away but will not go anywhere near it.
I may get the book to see the lies, errors and hypocrisy. Every erroneous position always has them. If there is one thing i despise it's people twisting the truth. I also won't be surprised if the author suppresses information.
You said:
"all exist for the same purpose: to explain away the Church's defection- after the fact... refusing to allow Rome to get away with changing what you perceive to be the true faith of the church."
You erroneously assert that 'the Roman Church' defected. It's the schismatic 'Orthodox' and the Vatican II Apostates who defected from the Church - not sedevacantist Catholics. It's the schismatic 'Orthodox' and the Vatican II antipopes who pray together and recognize each other as 'brothers' in the faith. They are birds of a feather!
The true members of Christ's flock, recognize NEITHER sect. Both sects are of the lead by Satan, and their proud rebellious members are all on their way to eternal perdition.
St.John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me.
If someone honestly wants the Truth, it is easy to find.
Also there must be heresies.
1 Corinthians. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”
God allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires.
Catholicism is the only Biblical and historical Christian religion.
Alright I'm three years late to replying to this video, so hoping for a reply, but ya know.
Fr. Cekada says that Conservative Catholics (ie. Conservatives in the NO or I assume the Eastern Rites or the Indult) agree with Sedevacantists on the nature of papal power, while the Recognize and Resist, (such as SSPX) don't. I have a question about this.
Wouldn't Conservative Catholics still disagree with Francis on a lot of things, presumably? Even conservatives who accept Vatican II and the novus ordo?
On what principle would you determine whether these people are or aren't "real Catholics?"
And why is it OK for these people to disagree with who they see as a true Pope, but its not OK for the SSPX to do the same?
Dear David: Better late than never! I don't quite understand your question. It would be easier if you shot me an email via the traditionalmass.org site, and I'll try to give you an answer. God bless you! -- Fr. C.
@@WorkofHumanHands I just tried to send you an email. If you didn't get it, please let me know, otherwise we can continue there. Thank you very much for your time.
Father Cekada you should go on faith and reason with Michael Lofton. He just had Salza on.
I totally agree with Rainer Hostedt in the comments (and I am a sedevacantist myself): I don't like the ironic and satirical undertone of sedevacantist publications or videos.
A humorous and well educating video. Pity we aren't able to watch every video of Fr. Cekada here in Germany because of GEMA.
Now that this priest has faced God, I wonder how he feels now, was he able to defend his 'suppositions'???
Father, great video, but about the Salza and Siscoe acusations, I ´m still shoking about your position in the Terry Schiavo case. Dou really think that you was not wrong in this case?
+Thiago Santos de Moraes I explained my position publicly in several articles that you can find on the internet. You can consult those.
+Rev. Anthony Cekada Ok, I will.
I don't feel like looking it up, can you related what Fr. Cekada said about Terry Schiavo?
@@Omegaman101 In short, he regarded her case as orthothanasia, not dysthanasia, as most catholics (traditional or otherwise) have done. In this case, I believe he made a big mistake.
All this talk about who's Peter, but no question about who is Christ. That has been, for nearly a millennium, the fundamental problem.
Cedaka speaks, you decide. Right?
Hm,... it's a youtube video and he's not the pope... so yeah, isn't that the idea?
Why do Traditionalists consider St. Escriva to be a "bad saint"?
SSPX-ers, especially, because Escriva and Opus were highly critical of Abp. Lefebvre and SSPX. Also, because both organizations were and are founder-based personality cults -- "El Padre" for one and "Monsigneur" for the other - and, well, you can only have one supreme spiritual guide and magisterium-substitute!
Rev. Anthony Cekada Thank you for your kind answer. I wonder about your family name, are you of Croatian origin? There is a Croatian Traditionalist blog
murusinexpugnabilis.blogspot.com/
that often quote a late priest and writer Čekada that was not strictly Traditionalist but was often critical of the Vatican II changes.
db.yadvashem.org/righteous/family.html?language=en&itemId=4404816
hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiljan_Franjo_%C4%8Cekada
Slovene, but it's from an area of the Adriatic where it could also been Italian at one time. As I recall, the bishop with the same last name was against religious liberty at V2.
good point still sedavac has to judge which popes are not valid. its all crazy. the orthodox claim rome walked away from the faith step by step 1000 years ago. i been exploring there poi t of view. the litergy will bring tears, supper traditional (few catholic eastern rites even compare)
we all need Gods intervention to solve this, mans s r ain of sin is beyond our ability to solve
Wonder how he and Saint Jerome are getting along. I fear Saint Jerome is ribbing him for his opponent, Salza, A joke.
Remember the Salsa file?! Father Cekada reaches into the trash can?!😎😎😎
"the pope speaks, you decide" well, is that not what does sedevacantists do too when they deem francis and the others heretics? I mean sure, you can argue that the R&R position does it with more frequency, but in the end isnt this a criticism of both camps?
Nope. The principle behind sedevacantism -- a public heretic cannot become a true pope - is actually found in pre-V2 Catholic theology. The principle behind R&R -- you get to pass judgement on each and every papal law and doctrinal pronouncement -- is not.
In fact, pre-V2 theology directly contradicts it, because it teaches that even merely "authentic magisterium" from a pope must be given religious submission.
Why don’t you think a pope could possibly say something erroneous? Why can’t you add, “Yes, Catholic’s ought to submit, as long as...”?
For sedes, there is no qualification to that statement, because you don’t think a pope could ever say something erroneous. For conservatives, there is qualified submission because we believe the pope could say something erroneous, and still remain pope. This latter situation is not historically new. Pope John XXII for example.
What is your response ?
Hmm... I wonder when Fr. Cekada is actually going to address the **arguments** in the book in a rational way rather than emotionally rattle his audience with images and the sound of a gavel struck against a sound block. This entire presentation is entirely refuted by "True or False Pope?" In my opinion, it is very revealing that Fr. Cekada chooses to respond this way.
+theloveofwisdom "Revealing" of what? That I don't accept R&R's "every man a pope-checker" myths?
+Rev. Anthony Cekada No, that you are not addressing the arguments in the book but probably used a lot of time making this video- appealing as you regularly do, to your 'pathos' and 'ethos' persuasion techniques rather than reasoning. These will only take you so far. Sooner or later, when the *SHOCK* value of the sedevacantist "solution" wears away, and people get tired of your dry wit (which I tend to enjoy) and actually start looking for the substance of your argument, people will get smart enough to realize that there is nothing there. So I will repeat my question, when are you going to actually deal with the arguments in the book? I ask because I look forward to the real intellectual debate, and this gavel slamming nonsense is obviously just you stalling while giving an impression that you are responding... That is, if you have even read the book yet.
+theloveofwisdom When are you going to realize the V2 sect is not the Catholic Church? But the end times counter "church"
Salza and Siscoe are in it for the $$$
They chose to write a flawed book then debate MHFM
If the videos disturb you, than read his articles...they are emotionally free of expression ....now of course he is a human...in other words very theologically doctrinated with many quotes to support his teachings...
::gasp:: You mean Fr. Cekada isn't a robot? He has a personality? That may come through on his videos? Say it aint so!! Oh, the horror!
As to the argument that sedevacantism has no substance, you're comparing the arguments of sedevacantists to Siscoe and Salza who are laughable at best - if for no other reason than that they think they understand the sedevacantist position, but sadly don't. But, of course, if you don't understand the sedevacantist arguments either, but also think you do, than of course their arguments will make sense.
Let's set aside the general RnR party line of completely ignoring the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium and spreading the idea that a moral majority of the Church may be unorthodox, even heretical, ecclesiastically, and teach false doctrine, while the Church simultaneously remains orthodox, inerrant, and true in its ecclesiology.
I don't like the ironic and satirical undertone of sedevacantist publications or videos. It's as if it was all a joking matter and as if Bergoglio was only some fool who can be laughed at, instead of a truly evil force of darkness in Rome.
+Rainer Hofstedt Not everyone likes satire and irony, but apart from the Indian shamans, I don't think too much in the video would actually fall into that category -- maybe it was just the juxtaposition of the obvious contradictions in the R&R position.
I was not necessarily referring to your video here, which is ridiculing the dishonest pharisees of Bergoglio's sect. I just noticed that Antipope Francis is often ridiculed, when in fact he poses a very serious thread to souls and is responsible for stifling the voice of truth in the world. People should realize that Catholicism is serious and that Bergoglio is really an abomination that inspires horror and not humor.
I mean, a serious topic requires a serious tone. People who engage in ridiculing humor are often not taken seriously themselves. Watching videos by novusordowatch etc. I happened to notice that ridicule often, and I find it misplaced. Would you ridicule Satan? Then why ridule Bergoglio who is like unto Satan NO LESS.
+Rainer Hofstedt Well...sometimes that is the only we can get a message across with some people.... sad to say. Use whatever approach, they will deny....and when you are dealing with content of faith...you cannot take it lightly because your eternity is compromised. Remember the blind man, healed by Christ in the Bible...after being questioned many times and asked to tell his story about how he was healed...the poor man got fed up and asked the pharisees and the Doctors of the law, ironically..Why do you want to know; do want to become his disciple?
When you have been fed with more than fifty years of lies and manipulations on behalf of those freemasons who want to reform the Catholic faith in such a way as to promulgate their world religion...when you discover the damage they have done to our faith, our liturgies and even to the constitution of our Catholic Church, these people don't deserve respect...There's no possible dialogue with heretics...St Paul and St John (the apostle of mercy) states this very clearly in his epistle..You don't even invite them home!
Bergoglio cannot open his mouth without saying something heretical and foolish...His last two synods consists of destroying the divine and natural law in reference to the indissolubility of marriage...He doesn't hold the faith...
Humm... about 70 Catholic Bishops in England at the time of Henry 8th, ONE resists and dies; 5000 or so today so maybe 70 will resist to the point of death... sounds about right.
Wrong... too optimistic... oh well...
Fr. Cekada, I am very surprised at how you exposed yourself in this video as being a "flip-flopper" when it comes to stating the Sedevacantist position. In this video (released in January of 2016), around the 6:53 mark, you state that the Sedevacantist position holds that "the V2 popes either lost authority in one fell swoop or never attained it in the first place." Then, in your other video entitled "Dead On Arrival" (released in July of 2016) you claim that ALL Sedes have by now abandoned the position of "loss of papal office." Did all Sedevacantists really abandon that position somewhere in between January and July of 2016??
Even in your "Stuck in a Rut" video (released before either one of the aforementioned videos, in June of 2015), you claim that Sedevacantists no longer appeal to the "loss of office" position. Unfortunately, this is where you made your "grave error" and exposed yourself in this "theological chess game" that Traditionalists have been playing for a long time. In "Stuck In a Rut" (June, 2015), you claim Sedevacantists no longer hold the "loss of office" position. Then, in this video: "The Pope Speaks, You decide" (January, 2016), you claim Sedevacantists hold the "loss of office position." Then, in "Dead on Arrival (July, 2016), you claim all Sedevacantists have by now abandoned the "loss of office position."
You might want to edit this video once again so that this "error" is corrected. God bless.
Your argument is fallacious as you can't see the forest for the trees: In this video, Fr. Cekada was clearly giving an overview of the _sedevacantist_ position, assuming his audience is unfamiliar with the terms and history of this controversy. As such, he outlines the general reasoning that the popes either lost their office under Divine Law as public heretics or that they never held the office to begin with. In the other videos, which are addressing particular topics in relation to this controversy, he clarifies that the former position was initially held by _sedevacantists_ when the crisis still in its infancy and when information about what the anti-popes believed was less readily available. He goes on to clarify that he doesn't know of any _sedes_ today who believe that they ever held office to begin with, since we now know that the anti-popes from Paul VI to Francis I all held heresies or committed public acts of apostasy prior to allegedly taking office. He then rightly states that it was dishonest of Salsa and Siscoe to "refute" an argument that _sedes_ no longer hold.
TL;DR -- The error in your reasoning was to conflate Fr. Cekada's overview as a self-contradiction, but if you review what he said in each video in context, you will see that there isn't one.
The pope checker app...
+Verum Nobis Watch for it in the next SSPX e-pistola!
Rev Fr Cekada who is your Pope?
R n R argument is weak !!
Fr.Cekada I need your take on the Dimond brothers.To them you are a heretic.They have the most horse waste on the internet market.
They couldn't even tell me where to attend Mass if they are against SSPV or any other traditional group.
The Dimond brothers are wrong on their position about "No salvation outside the church". They believe, that absolutely noone will go to heaven instead of catholics, who die in the state of sanctifying grace or martyrdom.
So what about the holy infants of Bethlehem? They were not baptised ...
QUOTE St.Paul "When I met Peter in Antioch I resisted him to his face"End quote.
Paul knew Peter was heretical in declaring uncircumcised Christians
not lawful to eat at table with the circumcised.Nevertheless God chose Peter and he later died on a cross upside down.
"Unless you become like a little child you will not enter God's kingdom".
It's not what we decide Fr.Anthony it's what the truth is.Christ came into the world to bring testimony of the truth.
There has to be a Pope whether you like it or not.
They are either popes going to heaven or popes going to hell.
Come on don't you think even priests, bishops,and religious can go to hell?
Read the message of Fatima and it will all come together. You will no longer be a sedevacantist.
I hope you see the truth.Jesus IHS XP is!
The argument you make in your first two sentences is horsefeathers -- but that's what you get for following the SSPX Pony Express!
Rev. Anthony Cekada If you are a true Alter Christus you would listen up.Any way I know you have valid holy orders but you really should analyze what I stated.Take it with a grain of salt. It's in the Holy Bible and is not horse waste.
You will be in our Rosary.
Have a Blessed one!
Look, it's a dumb argument that R&R/SSPX types have been unthinkingly recycling for decades. Read Novus Ordo Watch's excellent and definitive refutation of it: novusordowatch.org/2018/06/the-saint-paul-resisted-peter-objection/
There have been bad Popes in the past who have made bad decisions and have rightly been resisted.
If, what the current Pontiff is saying goes against 2000 years of Catholic tradition and blesses a man like Martin Luther then I know where my loyalty must be.
Pope Francis has not spoken ‘from the chair’ on any of his erroneous teachings and we must therefore assume he under the protection of the Holy Ghost and is the Pope. We must respect his office.
Let’s not forget that Paul resisted Peter himself when he made a mistake and we must do the same.
Or have we thrown out the teachings of all the great Saints and Popes from our past?
There is no substantial difference between criticizing things a pope is saying or doing and judging that a pope is not a real pope. Both is undermining the papacy and therefore the Roman Catholic Church. Since when do normal Catholics have the right to decide anything in the Catholic Church?
Sedesvacantism allows its followers to judge popes and higher clergy by their own interpretation of the teachings of the Church and by their own application of these interpretations. That is what makes it so attractive. It seems to give them some power. This is the same thing Luther did. I am not a Catholic so I don´t mind. But Sedesvacantists destroy the foundations of their own church. According to Catholicism the papacy is the rock of the church. Therefore: If there is no rock there is no Catholic church.
Your comment begins with a false opposition. R&R doesn't merely "criticize"; it refuses subjection to someone it claims is a true pope, which is incompatible with Catholic teaching. SVism says that there's no true pope there to be subject to in the first place -- a situation that theologians and even popes have said is indeed possible. And as for "undermining the papacy," since 2013 Chaos Frank is doing a pretty good job of that without my help.... : )
The only possible SV is the time between the death of a pope and the election of a new pope. Everything else is not Catholic teaching. But the problem is that SV-Supporters can not show the source of their authority to declare a pope a heretic. The point is that there is no authority given to anyone to declare a pope a heretic as long as he is in office. Maybe a successor of a pope can do that judging a former pope.
The other problem is that as long as a pope is NOT proclaiming heresy ex cathedra anything he is saying is just his private opinion in which he can err as everybody. But according to catholic teachings it is impossible that a pope can teach heresy ex cathedra. So it is logically impossible that a pope is a heretic. Even irregularities in a pope election does not make the election invalid which can easily be proved looking to church history.
The Sedevacantists and those you call R&R both do not follow Catholic teaching regarding the papacy.
You're barking up the wrong tree. We sedes now do not maintain that the V2 popes became true popes but LOST their offices, but rather that they were public heretics BEFORE their elections, and so never became true popes in the first place, because canonists teach that a public heretic, like a woman or a Moslems, CANNOT BE VALIDLY ELECTED pope. See my video Dead on Arrival, at 20:00 and following. th-cam.com/video/Dmjb5xw72C0/w-d-xo.html
By which authority to yo proclaim a cardinal or priest to be a heretic before he is elected pope? Show me that church law or teaching allows a Catholic to do so.
How's about St. Paul? "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."
Sedevacantism is mere opinion elevated to Dogma by Fr Cekada, who thinks he has a secret papal mandate from on High to do so, except maybe a mandate to elevate moods, because this video was hilariously satirical.
If you think he's teaching sedevacantism as a dogma, I'm afraid you are sadly unfamiliar with his teaching.
I feel as though Father is being unfair to the R&R position.
I get what he is saying, but there is far more nuance to it than he is letting on, here.
In these times of great confusion, a little charity goes a long way.
Nuance doesn't excuse error.