Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"  (Read 15072 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lover of Truth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8700
  • Reputation: +1158/-863
  • Gender: Male
"Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
« on: March 01, 2016, 05:24:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgcCujfQF0&ab_channel=Rev.AnthonyCekada

    Title somewhat misleading.  He was not a Sedevacantist but merely admitted the possibility.  Yet Salza and Sisco claim only the faithless hold that position.

    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13816
    • Reputation: +5566/-865
    • Gender: Male
    "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
    « Reply #1 on: March 01, 2016, 05:32:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From another post.....
    Quote from: Stubborn
    I doubt most sedevacantists will ever read that book and I think it's obvious that Fr. Cekada is doing everything he can to dissuade them in his usual underhanded fashion - especially those on the fence.

    His tactics are old and so blatantly obvious and full of obvious error that I have not yet been able to watch his last few videos all the way through.

    He did not even have the decency in is last video to address +ABL with the correct title of Archbishop, one which the good archbishop well earned, as he misnamed the video: "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist." Which in itself is an outright lie. Not sure who he is trying to fool with this one but his stupidity gets old after a while. Would he approve of a video named: "Tony Cekada: Renounces Sedevacantism"?

    The the video opens up with his typical error; "We begin with what Catholic Traditionalists call; the question of the pope". If he were honest, he would get to the point of the video and say, "we begin with why Traditional Catholics wrongfully think the pope is the pope".


    The sedevacantist position is a problem, not an answer and Fr. Cekada should be forced to relinquish his self appointed position as sede spokesman for one who actually attempts with honesty to vindicate the position.

    Although I think I speak for most trads when I say that I wish deposing the pope  were possible, but it's not. I also wish electing a new one as his replacement was possible, but it's not.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline McCork

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 626
    • Reputation: +10/-31
    • Gender: Male
    "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
    « Reply #2 on: March 01, 2016, 07:10:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    From another post.....
    Quote from: Stubborn
    I doubt most sedevacantists will ever read that book and I think it's obvious that Fr. Cekada is doing everything he can to dissuade them in his usual underhanded fashion - especially those on the fence.

    His tactics are old and so blatantly obvious and full of obvious error that I have not yet been able to watch his last few videos all the way through.

    He did not even have the decency in is last video to address +ABL with the correct title of Archbishop, one which the good archbishop well earned, as he misnamed the video: "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist." Which in itself is an outright lie. Not sure who he is trying to fool with this one but his stupidity gets old after a while. Would he approve of a video named: "Tony Cekada: Renounces Sedevacantism"?

    The the video opens up with his typical error; "We begin with what Catholic Traditionalists call; the question of the pope". If he were honest, he would get to the point of the video and say, "we begin with why Traditional Catholics wrongfully think the pope is the pope".


    The sedevacantist position is a problem, not an answer and Fr. Cekada should be forced to relinquish his self appointed position as sede spokesman for one who actually attempts with honesty to vindicate the position.

    Although I think I speak for most trads when I say that I wish deposing the pope  were possible, but it's not. I also wish electing a new one as his replacement was possible, but it's not.


    Why is it a problem?

    Offline Disputaciones

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1667
    • Reputation: +472/-178
    • Gender: Male
    "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
    « Reply #3 on: March 01, 2016, 08:13:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    From another post.....
    Quote from: Stubborn
    I doubt most sedevacantists will ever read that book and I think it's obvious that Fr. Cekada is doing everything he can to dissuade them in his usual underhanded fashion - especially those on the fence.

    His tactics are old and so blatantly obvious and full of obvious error that I have not yet been able to watch his last few videos all the way through.

    He did not even have the decency in is last video to address +ABL with the correct title of Archbishop, one which the good archbishop well earned, as he misnamed the video: "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist." Which in itself is an outright lie. Not sure who he is trying to fool with this one but his stupidity gets old after a while. Would he approve of a video named: "Tony Cekada: Renounces Sedevacantism"?

    The the video opens up with his typical error; "We begin with what Catholic Traditionalists call; the question of the pope". If he were honest, he would get to the point of the video and say, "we begin with why Traditional Catholics wrongfully think the pope is the pope".


    The sedevacantist position is a problem, not an answer and Fr. Cekada should be forced to relinquish his self appointed position as sede spokesman for one who actually attempts with honesty to vindicate the position.

    Although I think I speak for most trads when I say that I wish deposing the pope  were possible, but it's not. I also wish electing a new one as his replacement was possible, but it's not.


    Could you explain the difference in behavior towards the Novus Ordo and the Vatican iI popes between someone like you and a sedevacantist?

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13816
    • Reputation: +5566/-865
    • Gender: Male
    "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
    « Reply #4 on: March 02, 2016, 06:14:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: McCork
    Quote from: Stubborn
    From another post.....
    Quote from: Stubborn
    I doubt most sedevacantists will ever read that book and I think it's obvious that Fr. Cekada is doing everything he can to dissuade them in his usual underhanded fashion - especially those on the fence.

    His tactics are old and so blatantly obvious and full of obvious error that I have not yet been able to watch his last few videos all the way through.

    He did not even have the decency in is last video to address +ABL with the correct title of Archbishop, one which the good archbishop well earned, as he misnamed the video: "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist." Which in itself is an outright lie. Not sure who he is trying to fool with this one but his stupidity gets old after a while. Would he approve of a video named: "Tony Cekada: Renounces Sedevacantism"?

    The the video opens up with his typical error; "We begin with what Catholic Traditionalists call; the question of the pope". If he were honest, he would get to the point of the video and say, "we begin with why Traditional Catholics wrongfully think the pope is the pope".


    The sedevacantist position is a problem, not an answer and Fr. Cekada should be forced to relinquish his self appointed position as sede spokesman for one who actually attempts with honesty to vindicate the position.

    Although I think I speak for most trads when I say that I wish deposing the pope  were possible, but it's not. I also wish electing a new one as his replacement was possible, but it's not.


    Why is it a problem?


    I'm tempted to ask; why is it an answer?

    At any rate, I'll let "feeneyite" Brother Andre answer as he explains it in brief and in a manner a child can understand......

    First, if we have no pope, how is one to be elected? According to most sedevacantists, there has not been a pope since Pius XII. Since this is the case, there are no valid cardinals. The College of Cardinals must be vacant too, since anti-popes have been appointing these men to their positions. It is recognized that, after the College of Cardinals, the Roman clergy have authority to elect the pope. Let’s say the whole college was blown up by some Muslim during an extraordinary meeting they were holding. In that extreme circuмstance, the Roman Clergy could elect the pope, since he is their Bishop. But alas there is another problem. You see, the Roman Clergy is also vacant. Only Bishops can lawfully appoint clergy, and if there were no valid popes, there are no bishops with jurisdiction, therefore no lawful diocesan clergy. It’s a ruthless catch-22........


    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13816
    • Reputation: +5566/-865
    • Gender: Male
    "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
    « Reply #5 on: March 02, 2016, 06:43:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Disputaciones
    Quote from: Stubborn
    From another post.....
    Quote from: Stubborn
    I doubt most sedevacantists will ever read that book and I think it's obvious that Fr. Cekada is doing everything he can to dissuade them in his usual underhanded fashion - especially those on the fence.

    His tactics are old and so blatantly obvious and full of obvious error that I have not yet been able to watch his last few videos all the way through.

    He did not even have the decency in is last video to address +ABL with the correct title of Archbishop, one which the good archbishop well earned, as he misnamed the video: "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist." Which in itself is an outright lie. Not sure who he is trying to fool with this one but his stupidity gets old after a while. Would he approve of a video named: "Tony Cekada: Renounces Sedevacantism"?

    The the video opens up with his typical error; "We begin with what Catholic Traditionalists call; the question of the pope". If he were honest, he would get to the point of the video and say, "we begin with why Traditional Catholics wrongfully think the pope is the pope".


    The sedevacantist position is a problem, not an answer and Fr. Cekada should be forced to relinquish his self appointed position as sede spokesman for one who actually attempts with honesty to vindicate the position.

    Although I think I speak for most trads when I say that I wish deposing the pope  were possible, but it's not. I also wish electing a new one as his replacement was possible, but it's not.


    Could you explain the difference in behavior towards the Novus Ordo and the Vatican iI popes between someone like you and a sedevacantist?


    Obviously, the main difference is that most sedevacantists of the Cekadian variety are as sure that the pope is not the pope just as surely as the sun rises in the east.

    So it's really very simple, is based on the Catholic principle of respecting the authority of our superiors and is marvelously summed up in St. Thomas More's last words; "I die his Majesty's good servant but God's first." Catholics paraphrase these words to say: "I remain the pope's good subject, but God's first." Which is to say we have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority unless he should command something which is sinful.

    It should be needless to say that we are in a crisis and in this crisis, the plague of heresy has infected even the Holy Father and has rendered him dangerous and unclean - this we know because we know what wrong is. Our Lord expects us to do what is right, even if the popes do not.

    Also, if you pray the Novena to the Holy Ghost every day, if not it is something all trads should do, we find this principle wonderfully taught on "The Third Day".

    Quote from: Novena
    The gift of Piety begets in our hearts a filial affection for God as our most loving Father. It inspires us to love and respect for His sake persons and things consecrated to Him, as well as those who are vested with His authority, His Blessed Mother and the Saints, the Church and its visible Head, our parents and superiors, our country and its rulers. He who is filled with the gift of Piety finds the practice of his religion, not a burdensome duty, but a delightful service. Where there is love, there is no labor.


    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Disputaciones

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1667
    • Reputation: +472/-178
    • Gender: Male
    "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
    « Reply #6 on: March 02, 2016, 04:57:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: Disputaciones
    Quote from: Stubborn
    From another post.....
    Quote from: Stubborn
    I doubt most sedevacantists will ever read that book and I think it's obvious that Fr. Cekada is doing everything he can to dissuade them in his usual underhanded fashion - especially those on the fence.

    His tactics are old and so blatantly obvious and full of obvious error that I have not yet been able to watch his last few videos all the way through.

    He did not even have the decency in is last video to address +ABL with the correct title of Archbishop, one which the good archbishop well earned, as he misnamed the video: "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist." Which in itself is an outright lie. Not sure who he is trying to fool with this one but his stupidity gets old after a while. Would he approve of a video named: "Tony Cekada: Renounces Sedevacantism"?

    The the video opens up with his typical error; "We begin with what Catholic Traditionalists call; the question of the pope". If he were honest, he would get to the point of the video and say, "we begin with why Traditional Catholics wrongfully think the pope is the pope".


    The sedevacantist position is a problem, not an answer and Fr. Cekada should be forced to relinquish his self appointed position as sede spokesman for one who actually attempts with honesty to vindicate the position.

    Although I think I speak for most trads when I say that I wish deposing the pope  were possible, but it's not. I also wish electing a new one as his replacement was possible, but it's not.


    Could you explain the difference in behavior towards the Novus Ordo and the Vatican iI popes between someone like you and a sedevacantist?


    Obviously, the main difference is that most sedevacantists of the Cekadian variety are as sure that the pope is not the pope just as surely as the sun rises in the east.

    So it's really very simple, is based on the Catholic principle of respecting the authority of our superiors and is marvelously summed up in St. Thomas More's last words; "I die his Majesty's good servant but God's first." Catholics paraphrase these words to say: "I remain the pope's good subject, but God's first." Which is to say we have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority unless he should command something which is sinful.

    It should be needless to say that we are in a crisis and in this crisis, the plague of heresy has infected even the Holy Father and has rendered him dangerous and unclean - this we know because we know what wrong is. Our Lord expects us to do what is right, even if the popes do not.

    Also, if you pray the Novena to the Holy Ghost every day, if not it is something all trads should do, we find this principle wonderfully taught on "The Third Day".

    Quote from: Novena
    The gift of Piety begets in our hearts a filial affection for God as our most loving Father. It inspires us to love and respect for His sake persons and things consecrated to Him, as well as those who are vested with His authority, His Blessed Mother and the Saints, the Church and its visible Head, our parents and superiors, our country and its rulers. He who is filled with the gift of Piety finds the practice of his religion, not a burdensome duty, but a delightful service. Where there is love, there is no labor.




    What are these religious matters which fall within the ambit of the Vatican ii pope's authority in which you obey them?

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13816
    • Reputation: +5566/-865
    • Gender: Male
    "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
    « Reply #7 on: March 02, 2016, 05:05:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Disputaciones

    What are these religious matters which fall within the ambit of the Vatican ii pope's authority in which you obey them?


    I will let you know the next time he exercises his authority. So far as I know, like his conciliar predecessors, he has not even attempted to bind us to anything. All this pope does is go around speaking anti-Catholic rhetoric and doing anti-Catholic things.  
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline CWA

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 92
    • Reputation: +117/-3
    • Gender: Male
    "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
    « Reply #8 on: March 02, 2016, 05:13:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgcCujfQF0&ab_channel=Rev.AnthonyCekada

    Title somewhat misleading.  He was not a Sedevacantist but merely admitted the possibility.  Yet Salza and Sisco claim only the faithless hold that position.


    Salza admits the possiblility, just as +ABL did, that the Church may someday declare them not popes.  

    Quote from: John Salza
    I believe any honest Catholic should affirm, with Archbishop Lefebvre, that the  sedevacantist thesis is a possible explanation of the crisis in the Church because the conciliar Popes have made it so, by their words and actions.  Yet, in the words of the Archbishop, this question of a manifestly heretical Pope “leads to interminable theoretical discussions” which cannot be resolved with absolute certitude, especially by those with no special competence or authority (myself, of course, included!)

    Offline Disputaciones

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1667
    • Reputation: +472/-178
    • Gender: Male
    "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
    « Reply #9 on: March 02, 2016, 05:32:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: Disputaciones

    What are these religious matters which fall within the ambit of the Vatican ii pope's authority in which you obey them?


    I will let you know the next time he exercises his authority. So far as I know, like his conciliar predecessors, he has not even attempted to bind us to anything. All this pope does is go around speaking anti-Catholic rhetoric and doing anti-Catholic things.  


    So you admit there is no difference between the way a sedevacantist behaves and the way you behave, only that the former says openly that he doesn't regard the conciliar popes as real popes, and you don't.

    If you both behave exactly the same way, why do you constantly demonize SV and say so much against it?

    Offline McCork

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 626
    • Reputation: +10/-31
    • Gender: Male
    "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
    « Reply #10 on: March 02, 2016, 06:31:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: McCork
    Quote from: Stubborn
    From another post.....
    Quote from: Stubborn
    I doubt most sedevacantists will ever read that book and I think it's obvious that Fr. Cekada is doing everything he can to dissuade them in his usual underhanded fashion - especially those on the fence.

    His tactics are old and so blatantly obvious and full of obvious error that I have not yet been able to watch his last few videos all the way through.

    He did not even have the decency in is last video to address +ABL with the correct title of Archbishop, one which the good archbishop well earned, as he misnamed the video: "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist." Which in itself is an outright lie. Not sure who he is trying to fool with this one but his stupidity gets old after a while. Would he approve of a video named: "Tony Cekada: Renounces Sedevacantism"?

    The the video opens up with his typical error; "We begin with what Catholic Traditionalists call; the question of the pope". If he were honest, he would get to the point of the video and say, "we begin with why Traditional Catholics wrongfully think the pope is the pope".


    The sedevacantist position is a problem, not an answer and Fr. Cekada should be forced to relinquish his self appointed position as sede spokesman for one who actually attempts with honesty to vindicate the position.

    Although I think I speak for most trads when I say that I wish deposing the pope  were possible, but it's not. I also wish electing a new one as his replacement was possible, but it's not.


    Why is it a problem?


    I'm tempted to ask; why is it an answer?

    At any rate, I'll let "feeneyite" Brother Andre answer as he explains it in brief and in a manner a child can understand......

    First, if we have no pope, how is one to be elected? According to most sedevacantists, there has not been a pope since Pius XII. Since this is the case, there are no valid cardinals. The College of Cardinals must be vacant too, since anti-popes have been appointing these men to their positions. It is recognized that, after the College of Cardinals, the Roman clergy have authority to elect the pope. Let’s say the whole college was blown up by some Muslim during an extraordinary meeting they were holding. In that extreme circuмstance, the Roman Clergy could elect the pope, since he is their Bishop. But alas there is another problem. You see, the Roman Clergy is also vacant. Only Bishops can lawfully appoint clergy, and if there were no valid popes, there are no bishops with jurisdiction, therefore no lawful diocesan clergy. It’s a ruthless catch-22........




    My question was rather rhetorical, because you already said the follow:

    "I do not need a pope therefore "we" do not need one."

    Are you a mental case, or a communist plant?  How can you continually spend SO much time complaining when people say there is no pope while you believe we don't need one?


    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6273
    • Reputation: +3628/-347
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
    « Reply #11 on: March 02, 2016, 07:13:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: McCork
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: McCork
    Quote from: Stubborn
    From another post.....
    Quote from: Stubborn
    I doubt most sedevacantists will ever read that book and I think it's obvious that Fr. Cekada is doing everything he can to dissuade them in his usual underhanded fashion - especially those on the fence.

    His tactics are old and so blatantly obvious and full of obvious error that I have not yet been able to watch his last few videos all the way through.

    He did not even have the decency in is last video to address +ABL with the correct title of Archbishop, one which the good archbishop well earned, as he misnamed the video: "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist." Which in itself is an outright lie. Not sure who he is trying to fool with this one but his stupidity gets old after a while. Would he approve of a video named: "Tony Cekada: Renounces Sedevacantism"?

    The the video opens up with his typical error; "We begin with what Catholic Traditionalists call; the question of the pope". If he were honest, he would get to the point of the video and say, "we begin with why Traditional Catholics wrongfully think the pope is the pope".


    The sedevacantist position is a problem, not an answer and Fr. Cekada should be forced to relinquish his self appointed position as sede spokesman for one who actually attempts with honesty to vindicate the position.

    Although I think I speak for most trads when I say that I wish deposing the pope  were possible, but it's not. I also wish electing a new one as his replacement was possible, but it's not.


    Why is it a problem?


    I'm tempted to ask; why is it an answer?

    At any rate, I'll let "feeneyite" Brother Andre answer as he explains it in brief and in a manner a child can understand......

    First, if we have no pope, how is one to be elected? According to most sedevacantists, there has not been a pope since Pius XII. Since this is the case, there are no valid cardinals. The College of Cardinals must be vacant too, since anti-popes have been appointing these men to their positions. It is recognized that, after the College of Cardinals, the Roman clergy have authority to elect the pope. Let’s say the whole college was blown up by some Muslim during an extraordinary meeting they were holding. In that extreme circuмstance, the Roman Clergy could elect the pope, since he is their Bishop. But alas there is another problem. You see, the Roman Clergy is also vacant. Only Bishops can lawfully appoint clergy, and if there were no valid popes, there are no bishops with jurisdiction, therefore no lawful diocesan clergy. It’s a ruthless catch-22........




    My question was rather rhetorical, because you already said the follow:

    "I do not need a pope therefore "we" do not need one."

    Are you a mental case, or a communist plant?  How can you continually spend SO much time complaining when people say there is no pope while you believe we don't need one?


     :applause:   :roll-laugh1:
    Please pray for my soul.
    R.I.P. 8/17/22

    My new blog @ https://myforever.blog/blog/

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13816
    • Reputation: +5566/-865
    • Gender: Male
    "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
    « Reply #12 on: March 02, 2016, 08:11:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Disputaciones
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: Disputaciones

    What are these religious matters which fall within the ambit of the Vatican ii pope's authority in which you obey them?


    I will let you know the next time he exercises his authority. So far as I know, like his conciliar predecessors, he has not even attempted to bind us to anything. All this pope does is go around speaking anti-Catholic rhetoric and doing anti-Catholic things.  


    So you admit there is no difference between the way a sedevacantist behaves and the way you behave, only that the former says openly that he doesn't regard the conciliar popes as real popes, and you don't.

    If you both behave exactly the same way, why do you constantly demonize SV and say so much against it?


    No, we do not behave the same. Sedevacantists flirt with an absolutely unknowable, anti-Catholic belief which at the very least, is highly dangerous to their eternity, because no one at all makes it to heaven without personal submission to the pope. That is dogma, it binds us all without regard to our opinion. So if they are wrong, and there is no way possible to prove they are right, they are risking their entire eternity on their own opinion - an opinion which contradicts Catholic teaching.

    Because of their opinion, they are not only unable, but absolutely unwilling - or better to say - that they've made themselves *incapable* to personally submit to the pope under any circuмstance because they do not believe he even is the pope. This is not Catholic.

    We differ because when we Catholics remain the pope's good subjects but God's first, we do not follow or obey him when we know he is in error, rather, we pray for the pope daily - which is the duty of every Catholic regardless of our opinion on the pope's sanctity - indeed, the less saintly the pope is, the worse he needs our prayers, but sedevacantists do not see it this way, which is the only way that Catholics see it.

    Recall also that so strong is this error that the sedevacantists split from traditional Catholics with their opinion as their armor, opened their own chapels and seminaries, consecrate their own bishops, ordain their own priests, opened their own schools, celebrate Mass according to their own opinion - in short, they have separated themselves because it is *they* who behave differently. They have convinced themselves that they know for certain something absolutely impossible to prove, let alone know for certain while we live in this world.

    The blatant dishonesty that most (not all) sedevacantists demonstrate is an identifiable trait by which Catholics know them.

    Ask any sedevacantist why do they personally need a pope for their salvation and you will see this dishonesty for yourself. When I asked that question here on CI, only one sedevacantist, whom I have high regard for, honestly answered - ALL the rest of them weaseled as is per usual, rather than give an honest answer........one of the dogmatic sedes, McCork, in his desperation to side step the question, even went so far as start a thread about how I supposedly reject the above mentioned dogma, just so he could avoid answering that simple question.

    No, we do not behave the same.
     
     
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13816
    • Reputation: +5566/-865
    • Gender: Male
    "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
    « Reply #13 on: March 02, 2016, 08:15:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: McCork
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: McCork
    Quote from: Stubborn
    From another post.....
    Quote from: Stubborn
    I doubt most sedevacantists will ever read that book and I think it's obvious that Fr. Cekada is doing everything he can to dissuade them in his usual underhanded fashion - especially those on the fence.

    His tactics are old and so blatantly obvious and full of obvious error that I have not yet been able to watch his last few videos all the way through.

    He did not even have the decency in is last video to address +ABL with the correct title of Archbishop, one which the good archbishop well earned, as he misnamed the video: "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist." Which in itself is an outright lie. Not sure who he is trying to fool with this one but his stupidity gets old after a while. Would he approve of a video named: "Tony Cekada: Renounces Sedevacantism"?

    The the video opens up with his typical error; "We begin with what Catholic Traditionalists call; the question of the pope". If he were honest, he would get to the point of the video and say, "we begin with why Traditional Catholics wrongfully think the pope is the pope".


    The sedevacantist position is a problem, not an answer and Fr. Cekada should be forced to relinquish his self appointed position as sede spokesman for one who actually attempts with honesty to vindicate the position.

    Although I think I speak for most trads when I say that I wish deposing the pope  were possible, but it's not. I also wish electing a new one as his replacement was possible, but it's not.


    Why is it a problem?


    I'm tempted to ask; why is it an answer?

    At any rate, I'll let "feeneyite" Brother Andre answer as he explains it in brief and in a manner a child can understand......

    First, if we have no pope, how is one to be elected? According to most sedevacantists, there has not been a pope since Pius XII. Since this is the case, there are no valid cardinals. The College of Cardinals must be vacant too, since anti-popes have been appointing these men to their positions. It is recognized that, after the College of Cardinals, the Roman clergy have authority to elect the pope. Let’s say the whole college was blown up by some Muslim during an extraordinary meeting they were holding. In that extreme circuмstance, the Roman Clergy could elect the pope, since he is their Bishop. But alas there is another problem. You see, the Roman Clergy is also vacant. Only Bishops can lawfully appoint clergy, and if there were no valid popes, there are no bishops with jurisdiction, therefore no lawful diocesan clergy. It’s a ruthless catch-22........




    My question was rather rhetorical, because you already said the follow:

    "I do not need a pope therefore "we" do not need one."

    Are you a mental case, or a communist plant?  How can you continually spend SO much time complaining when people say there is no pope while you believe we don't need one?


    Are you actually that stupid or are you trying to be funny? Either way, your ignorance is quite profound.

    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline McCork

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 626
    • Reputation: +10/-31
    • Gender: Male
    "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist"
    « Reply #14 on: March 03, 2016, 05:40:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: McCork
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: McCork
    Quote from: Stubborn
    From another post.....
    Quote from: Stubborn
    I doubt most sedevacantists will ever read that book and I think it's obvious that Fr. Cekada is doing everything he can to dissuade them in his usual underhanded fashion - especially those on the fence.

    His tactics are old and so blatantly obvious and full of obvious error that I have not yet been able to watch his last few videos all the way through.

    He did not even have the decency in is last video to address +ABL with the correct title of Archbishop, one which the good archbishop well earned, as he misnamed the video: "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist." Which in itself is an outright lie. Not sure who he is trying to fool with this one but his stupidity gets old after a while. Would he approve of a video named: "Tony Cekada: Renounces Sedevacantism"?

    The the video opens up with his typical error; "We begin with what Catholic Traditionalists call; the question of the pope". If he were honest, he would get to the point of the video and say, "we begin with why Traditional Catholics wrongfully think the pope is the pope".


    The sedevacantist position is a problem, not an answer and Fr. Cekada should be forced to relinquish his self appointed position as sede spokesman for one who actually attempts with honesty to vindicate the position.

    Although I think I speak for most trads when I say that I wish deposing the pope  were possible, but it's not. I also wish electing a new one as his replacement was possible, but it's not.


    Why is it a problem?


    I'm tempted to ask; why is it an answer?

    At any rate, I'll let "feeneyite" Brother Andre answer as he explains it in brief and in a manner a child can understand......

    First, if we have no pope, how is one to be elected? According to most sedevacantists, there has not been a pope since Pius XII. Since this is the case, there are no valid cardinals. The College of Cardinals must be vacant too, since anti-popes have been appointing these men to their positions. It is recognized that, after the College of Cardinals, the Roman clergy have authority to elect the pope. Let’s say the whole college was blown up by some Muslim during an extraordinary meeting they were holding. In that extreme circuмstance, the Roman Clergy could elect the pope, since he is their Bishop. But alas there is another problem. You see, the Roman Clergy is also vacant. Only Bishops can lawfully appoint clergy, and if there were no valid popes, there are no bishops with jurisdiction, therefore no lawful diocesan clergy. It’s a ruthless catch-22........




    My question was rather rhetorical, because you already said the follow:

    "I do not need a pope therefore "we" do not need one."

    Are you a mental case, or a communist plant?  How can you continually spend SO much time complaining when people say there is no pope while you believe we don't need one?


    Are you actually that stupid or are you trying to be funny? Either way, your ignorance is quite profound.



    Just shining the spotlight on your cathinfo clown antics. I don't have to try and be funny.