Author Topic: Cekadas quidlibit "nothing to lose" (Read 3454 times)

PG · « **on:** May 09, 2014, 05:34:42 PM »

http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/

Fr. Cekada shows his cards! Fr. Cekada basically admits that you cannot depose a pope, and hints at preferring an "imperfect council(conclave)" approach to this crisis(by the fact that he didn't elaborate on the other options - divine papal coronation(palmar repeat?... no thanks) or the material/formal thesis(sedeprivationism)).

I will leave the rest of the heavy lifting for the Holy Ghost. Because, really, who wants the 1962 liturgy, or a thuc pope? That answer is an easy one(= nobody)!

Progress in this direction gives traditionalists two choices. You can either choose a Thuc Pope from a vacantist conclave(because that is the soul of vacantism/its natural end), or you can choose sedeprivationism(pope is not divinely assisted, but not deposed/I am convinced it is non una cuм by nature). That is basically what Fr. Cekada is saying. And, I support this development.

I know that this leaves R&R out, but we know where R&R leads. R&R leads to compromise.

I support this development because I want the conversation to be about Pius XII(whom vacantists glorify yet do not obey!). I want the conversation to be about the 1950/1954 mass changes(which the majority of vacantists reject). I want the conversation to be about Pius XII and his teaching/allowance of "rythm observance for grave reasons". And, lastly, I want the conversation to be about Abp. Thuc.

Luker · « **Reply #1 on:** May 09, 2014, 06:22:32 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/

Fr. Cekada shows his cards! Fr. Cekada basically admits that you cannot depose a pope, and hints at preferring an "imperfect council(conclave)" approach to this crisis(by the fact that he didn't elaborate on the other options - divine papal coronation(palmar repeat?... no thanks) or the material/formal thesis(sedeprivationism)).

-snip-

I would suggest you read through the article again, this time s-l-o-w-l-y, if you think this is what Fr Cekada is saying.

However that said, it was a good article from Fr Cekada, thanks for posting it.

songbird · « **Reply #2 on:** May 09, 2014, 07:11:59 PM »

Define pope. Even nomination, must be valid, and that never happened. Sorry, Pope Francis, never was a valid nomination. They must be "Catholic", not Maonic.

PG · « **Reply #3 on:** May 09, 2014, 07:40:07 PM »

Luker - I do like his quidlibet articles. Fr. Cekada has a sense of humor that most vacantists lack. And, perhaps I should not say that he "admitted" these things, but I think this is the first time he has put the "solutions" in writing(I remember it only from a video interview). But, if it is true that you can declare the chair vacant without cardinals or a council, then they should not abandon that "truth". But, by the looks of this article, they are.

And, Fr. Cekada has said that he does not believe in the material/formal thesis(privationism), so therefore he is a conclavist.

I just want people to know up front what the end of all of these options are, because their is a obvious end to each(and they know it). Vacantists hinder reasoning along those lines. And, that offends me.

Ambrose · « **Reply #4 on:** May 09, 2014, 07:46:16 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

Luker - I do like his quidlibet articles. Fr. Cekada has a sense of humor that most vacantists lack. And, perhaps I should not say that he "admitted" these things, but I think this is the first time he has put the "solutions" in writing(I remember it only from a video interview). But, if it is true that you can declare the chair vacant without cardinals or a council, then they should not abandon that "truth". But, by the looks of this article, they are.

And, Fr. Cekada has said that he does not believe in the material/formal thesis(privationism), so therefore he is a conclavist.

I just want people to know up front what the end of all of these options are, because their is a obvious end to each(and they know it). Vacantists hinder reasoning along those lines. And, that offends me.

Why don't you state exactly what these "obvious" ends are, and why you have a problem with them.

PG · « **Reply #5 on:** May 09, 2014, 07:48:35 PM »

Luker - I also hate to have to say this, but Fr. Cekada is not the most honest(to put it mildly) priest I have come across, so in a roundabout way, I do believe that this article is "admitting" these things(that is if you know a thing or two about the man).

TKGS · « **Reply #6 on:** May 09, 2014, 09:23:27 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

Fr. Cekada shows his cards! Fr. Cekada basically admits that you cannot depose a pope...

Well, of course, you cannot depose a pope. That is Catholic doctrine.

But I've not met a sedevacantist who has done so. By their heresies, the Conciliar claimants to the papacy have already left the Church and resigned any offices they may have had.

The sedevacantist merely admits to what has already happened.

Luker · « **Reply #7 on:** May 09, 2014, 10:33:13 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

Luker - I also hate to have to say this, but Fr. Cekada is not the most honest(to put it mildly) priest I have come across, so in a roundabout way, I do believe that this article is "admitting" these things(that is if you know a thing or two about the man).

Why just slyly drop this insinuation about Fr Cekada if you are unwilling to go whole hog and calumniate his name completely on a public forum?

I don't know Father Cekada personally, I have never met him. I only know him through his writings and radio broadcasts and take him as such.

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #8 on:** May 09, 2014, 10:46:21 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

Luker - I also hate to have to say this, but Fr. Cekada is not the most honest(to put it mildly) priest I have come across, so in a roundabout way, I do believe that this article is "admitting" these things(that is if you know a thing or two about the man).

Either explain yourself or retract your statement.

PG · « **Reply #9 on:** May 09, 2014, 11:26:12 PM »

tkgs - That is exactly the reason I started this thread. Fr. Cekada is now saying - "hey guys, give up that line".

Southpawlink - You are missing a comma.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #10 on:** May 10, 2014, 06:52:53 AM »

Quote from: + PG +

http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/

Fr. Cekada shows his cards! Fr. Cekada basically admits that you cannot depose a pope, and hints at preferring an "imperfect council(conclave)" approach to this crisis(by the fact that he didn't elaborate on the other options - divine papal coronation(palmar repeat?... no thanks) or the material/formal thesis(sedeprivationism)).

I hate to sound harsh here, PG, but do any of the R&R apologists here have any inkling what Fr. Cekada is attempting here?

He's basically rendering obsolete the R&R's key defence against sedevacantism at a time when R&R resistance to sedevacantism is very shaky.

To use an analogy from UFC, Fr Cekada is basically saying: "Sedes and R&R are fairly well matched when it comes to striking, but the R&R has no grappling skills. The R&R is now suffering from some heavy hits taken during the last round. So while sedes could probably continue to strike this match and go for the knock-out, a smarter sede strategy is to eat a few R&R punches, take the fight to the ground, and force a submission.

Ambrose · « **Reply #11 on:** May 10, 2014, 07:34:54 AM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: + PG +
http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/

Fr. Cekada shows his cards! Fr. Cekada basically admits that you cannot depose a pope, and hints at preferring an "imperfect council(conclave)" approach to this crisis(by the fact that he didn't elaborate on the other options - divine papal coronation(palmar repeat?... no thanks) or the material/formal thesis(sedeprivationism)).

I hate to sound harsh here, PG, but do any of the R&R apologists here have any inkling what Fr. Cekada is attempting here?

He's basically rendering obsolete the R&R's key defence against sedevacantism at a time when R&R resistance to sedevacantism is very shaky.

To use an analogy from UFC, Fr Cekada is basically saying: "Sedes and R&R are fairly well matched when it comes to striking, but the R&R has no grappling skills. The R&R is now suffering from some heavy hits taken during the last round. So while sedes could probably continue to strike this match and go for the knock-out, a smarter sede strategy is to eat a few R&R punches, take the fight to the ground, and force a submission.

Pete,

FYI,

PG is a schismatic who believes that Pope Pius XII lost his office in 1951 for reforming the Easter Vigil.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #12 on:** May 10, 2014, 07:45:17 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

FYI,

PG is a schismatic who believes that Pope Pius XII lost his office in 1951 for reforming the Easter Vigil.

Interesting. PG?

TKGS · « **Reply #13 on:** May 10, 2014, 04:32:21 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

tkgs - That is exactly the reason I started this thread. Fr. Cekada is now saying - "hey guys, give up that line".

Could you point out where he says this? I'm unable to see it. Perhaps I'm just missing it.

Matto · « **Reply #14 on:** May 10, 2014, 04:36:21 PM »

If you say Francis is not the Pope you are not in schism.
If you say Benedict was not the Pope you are not in schism.
If you say John Paul II was not the Pope you are not in schism.
If you say John Paul I was not the Pope you are not in schism.
If you say Paul VI was not the Pope you are not in schism.
If you say John XXIII was not the Pope you are not in schism.
If you say Pius XII was not the Pope you are in schism.