Author Topic: Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada  (Read 2543 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AJNC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 986
  • Reputation: +556/-40
  • Gender: Male
Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada
« on: June 13, 2018, 03:02:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!4
  • Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal - Print version (book)
    https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam

    AVAILABLE NOW - $10 plus shipping.



    : Quidlibet :
    A Traditionalist Miscellany — By the Rev. Anthony Cekada

    My Response to Fr. Chazal’s “Contra Cekadam”
    Fr. François Chazal
    by Rev. Anthony Cekada
    FATHER FRANÇOIS Chazal is former member of the Society of St. Pius X who left the organization several years ago when the prospect of an SSPX-Vatican deal looked particularly likely, and with a number of other similarly-minded ex-SSPX priests, formed a loose association of priests known as “the Resistance.”
    The Resistance priests maintain they are carrying on the authentic teaching of SSPX founder Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, which was to “recognize” the Vatican II popes as true popes, but to resist on a case-by-case basis papally-approved teachings, laws and commands that the archbishop and others decided were evil or erroneous.
    This position is now generally referred to as “R&R” or “Recognize and Resist” — a label, by the way, that I myself coined in a December 2005 article in The Remnant. Several years ago, I circulated a video which summed up the position as The Pope Speaks: You Decide: Traditionalists Who Destroy the Papacy.
    As I and others have repeatedly pointed out, the R&R position simply cannot be reconciled with traditional Catholic teaching on the indefectibility and the infallibility of the Church. Once you say (as all traditionalists do) that the officially-approved post-Vatican II teachings contain error or evil, the only logical conclusion you can come to is that the men who promulgated them had no authority when they did so — sedevacantism, in other words. Otherwise, you wind up with a defecting Church.
    I made this argument in a 1995 article Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope (since revised in 2006), which has since then been widely circulated as a booklet (at least 30,000 copies) and on the internet.
    No one that I know of on the R&R side has, in all these years, published a credible refutation of this rather short work.
    When a correspondent of mine challenged Fr. Chazal to do so, Fr. Chazal produced a seven-part, thirty-nine page monograph entitled “Contra Cekadam,” which is now being circulated in installments on the internet.
    One would think that such a vast mountain of verbiage would require me to produce an equally prolix response. But no, Fr. Chazal simply missed the point of my argument, and wandered off into the bushes to talk about something else. I don’t feel any obligation to follow him there — or, as Bergolio might say, to “Accompany Fr. Chazal in his journey of discernment.”
    The following brief comments to a correspondent will suffice.
    •   •   •
    Thanks for sending along the Chazal document. It is hardly, as Fr. Chazal seems to think, a point-by-point refutation of my argument in Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope.
    Fr. Chazal’s Contra Cekadam doesn’t even state the argument of the “Cekadam” in question, still less refute it. Here, for the record, is the argument I made in the booklet:
    • Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.
    • Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
    • It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
    • Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.
    • Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.
    • Canonists and theologians also teach that a public heretic, by divine law, is incapable of being validly elected pope or obtaining papal authority.
    • Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. In 1559 Pope Paul IV decreed that the election of a heretic to the papacy would be invalid, and that the man elected would lack all authority.
    • Since the Church cannot defect, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we repeatedly encounter is that they proceed from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, publicly defected from the faith, and therefore do not objectively possess canonical authority.
    If Fr. Chazal agrees with the statements in points 1 (the changes are evil) and 2 (and the Church, by Christ’s promise, cannot give evil/error), but he nevertheless still insists the Vatican II popes are true popes possessing authority from Christ, he maintains in effect that the Church of Christ has defected and that Christ’s promises are void.
    As for the rest, Fr. Chazal simply:
    • Recycles opinions on a heretical pope that were eventually abandoned after St. Robert Bellarmine.
    • Attempts to apply criteria pertaining to ecclesiastical crimes when sedevacantists maintain that the public sin of heresy, not the crime, is what prevents a heretical pope from obtaining or retaining the papacy.
    • Refloats the phony Adrian VI quote.
    • Repeats the Paul-vs-Peter canard [see Appendix at end of the post here] on fraternal correction for a moral fault, which does not solve the problem of the Church defecting wholesale by promulgating theological errors and evil universal laws.
    • In his treatment of Scripture as a “refutation” of sedevacantism, ignores St. Paul’s own assertion that he could in fact, “preach another Gospel,” for which even he himself would become “anathema.”
    • Recycles supposed incidents from history to demonstrate that there have been heretic popes before, but which incidents (a) are part of the standard arguments of protestants who reject papal infallibility, and (b) have been repeatedly refuted by Catholic dogmatic theologians.
    Fr. Chazal’s arguments on each of these points still do not get him out of the theological pickle that points 1 and 2 of my original argument put him in — the Chazalian equation that works out to:
    • Evil changes + true popes = defected Church.
    Good luck getting out of that one, Father Chazal!

    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8650
    • Reputation: +3393/-714
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada
    « Reply #1 on: June 13, 2018, 06:45:09 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • by Rev. Anthony Cekada
    FATHER FRANÇOIS Chazal is former member of the Society of St. Pius X who left the organization several years ago when the prospect of an SSPX-Vatican deal looked particularly likely, and with a number of other similarly-minded ex-SSPX priests, formed a loose association of priests known as “the Resistance.”

    This brings back memories of the days when the former member of the SSPX, Fr Cekada himself, was given the boot by Archbishop Lefebvre when the good archbishop would have no part in the prospect of him and a number of other similarly-minded now ex-SSPX priests formed a loose association of priests known as the "Sedevacantists”.



    Quote
    The Resistance priests maintain they are carrying on the authentic teaching of SSPX founder Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, which was to “recognize” the Vatican II popes as true popes, but to resist on a case-by-case basis papally-approved teachings, laws and commands that the archbishop and others decided were evil or erroneous.

    The sedevacantist priests maintain they are carrying on the authentic teaching of the Church, but their position was in opposition to it, so SSPX founder Abp. Marcel Lefebvre tried to teach these sedevacantist priests what the truth was according to the teachings of the Church, but they resisted him to his face and continue to do so, often by falsely referencing the good archbishop as being tolerant and even sympathetic to sedevacantism, portraying the good archbishop as if he regretted expelling The Nine for their sedevacantism.

    The rest of his response is the same tired old Cekadaisms.







    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2728
    • Reputation: +1674/-900
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada
    « Reply #2 on: June 13, 2018, 08:59:18 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • Quote
    Evil changes if they are binding under pain of sin + true popes = defected Church.

    Fr Cekada, I fixed your argument for you.  As usual, your original argument was wrong because it was an over-simplification of a complex situation.

    If evil changes are not binding, then they aren't from the Church, because the Church does not teach things which are optional.  A teaching is either from the Church or it is not.  It either must be accepted or it does not have to be.  V2 and the new mass are optional and not necessary for salvation, therefore they are not from the official Church, but only the fallible magisterium (which is not official Church teaching) therefore indefectibility is irrelevant to the discussion.  Therefore, your argument is wrong.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14621
    • Reputation: +7672/-2383
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada
    « Reply #3 on: June 13, 2018, 09:23:46 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr Cekada, I fixed your argument for you.

    Except that your "fix" is completely WRONG.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14621
    • Reputation: +7672/-2383
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada
    « Reply #4 on: June 13, 2018, 09:32:24 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is and always has been the CHIEF FAILING of Father Cekada's dogmatic sedevacantist position:

    Quote
    Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.

    This is step 5 in his argument.  THIS IS DEBATABLE.  There are many theologians, in fact the majority, who hold that such a one would have to be declared deprived of office before he's completely out of office.  Sedeprivationism is one (very plausible) answer.  Even Father Chazal admits in his sedeimpoundism position that these men lack all TEACHING authority on account of heresy.  Apart from this, the rest of his argument is quite solid.


    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8650
    • Reputation: +3393/-714
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada
    « Reply #5 on: June 13, 2018, 11:43:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Since the Church cannot defect, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we repeatedly encounter is that they proceed from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, publicly defected from the faith, and therefore do not objectively possess canonical authority.

    This is not the best explanation, this is an explanation you might expect from a priest who had a NO priestly formation - which like the other eight, Fr. Cekada had prior to Econe.

    Fr. Wathen states it plain enough.......

    "...Contrary to such reasoning, it is within the Conciliar Establishment that one finds the historical and structural continuity of the True Church; even though they are serving Satan, those who hold ecclesiastical offices hold them legitimately. Those who say otherwise have not proved that, because these men are apostates from the Faith, they cannot be considered to hold any offices. "One who is no longer a Catholic," they say, "cannot possibly hold an office within the Church, nor exercise legitimate authority." No, even though these individuals have incurred the censures of the Church's law for heresy, apostasy, the desecration of the churches, the violation of the Sacraments, for these and similar crimes, they continue to be the legitimate authorities of the Church...."
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14621
    • Reputation: +7672/-2383
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada
    « Reply #6 on: June 13, 2018, 12:19:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Wathen states it plain enough.......

    "Those who say otherwise have not proved that, because these men are apostates from the Faith, they cannot be considered to hold any offices.

    Right, this is the same point I was making above on Father Cekada's point #5.  This is a disputed question among theologians.  Father Cekada claims that "canonist and theologians" teach this ... attempting to give the impression that they hold it unanimously.  Father Wathen, on the other hand, gratuitously asserts the opposite, that they CAN hold offices.  That's not certain either.  Being unable to prove Father Cekada's position is not proof of the opposite position either.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2728
    • Reputation: +1674/-900
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada
    « Reply #7 on: June 13, 2018, 12:29:06 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Since these apostates hold the offices in reality and publicly, then until they are removed PUBLICLY, they still hold the office.  It’s that simple. 

    If Fr Cekada wants to argue they have lost their office automatically, the burden of proof is on him to prove it, in the absence of Church legal process.  And he has yet to prove it with certainty.  


    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14621
    • Reputation: +7672/-2383
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada
    « Reply #8 on: June 13, 2018, 12:51:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Since these apostates hold the offices in reality and publicly, then until they are removed PUBLICLY, they still hold the office.  It’s that simple.

    No, it is most certainly not that simple.  I love how you think that claiming something and adding "It's that simple" somehow makes your assertion true and proven.

    Cum ex actually stated the exact opposite of what you're saying.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2728
    • Reputation: +1674/-900
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada
    « Reply #9 on: June 13, 2018, 04:34:53 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Obviously there is debate on what Cum Ex means.  If there was no debate, then BOOM, we are all sedevacant, no ifs, ands or buts.  Yet, if there is still debate on what Cum Ex means, as Fr Chazal is arguing, then the burden of proof is still on the prosecution (i.e. sedes/Fr Cekada) to prove, beyond a doubt, that there is no pope and/or that most of the church offices are vacant.

    Offline AJNC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 986
    • Reputation: +556/-40
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada
    « Reply #10 on: June 14, 2018, 03:09:53 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, it is most certainly not that simple.  I love how you think that claiming something and adding "It's that simple" somehow makes your assertion true and proven.

    Cum ex actually stated the exact opposite of what you're saying.
    In the meantime the reputed website catholic-hierarchy.org states of Archbishop Marcel  François Lefebvre that he "left the Church"


    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8650
    • Reputation: +3393/-714
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada
    « Reply #11 on: June 14, 2018, 04:57:12 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • No, it is most certainly not that simple.  I love how you think that claiming something and adding "It's that simple" somehow makes your assertion true and proven.

    Cum ex actually stated the exact opposite of what you're saying.

    The problem with Cum ex is, if everything it says pertaining to lost offices is in fact still in force or is divine law as the sedes believe, then there has been no Catholic  Church on earth for the last 60 years for certain, more likely the last 400 or 500 years - at least.


    Quote
    Cum ex:
    Anysoever who, before this date [or shall in the future], have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith.....

    If Cum ex is in fact the law, then it absolutely applies to +ABL who signed the documents and said the NOM, to "The Nine" who all studied NO theology at NO universities, to +Thuc and all V2 attendees, to everyone who has ever spoken with a NO priest or went to a NOM. They all lost their offices. This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

    Where does it end? Where does it start?  According to Cum ex, it can be argued that St. Paul was an invalid Apostle since "before this date", he not only deviated from the Catholic faith, he persecuted those who held it.

    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6724
    • Reputation: +4155/-520
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada
    « Reply #12 on: June 14, 2018, 06:45:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Since these apostates hold the offices in reality and publicly, then until they are removed PUBLICLY, they still hold the office.  It’s that simple.

    And who do you suppose is going to "remove" them publicly? The apostate (mason) they themselves have maneuvered to place in the Papal Office?
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2176
    • Reputation: +1182/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada
    « Reply #13 on: June 14, 2018, 08:07:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And who do you suppose is going to "remove" them publicly? The apostate (mason) they themselves have maneuvered to place in the Papal Office?
    Cantarella,

    Where that image of Our Blessed Mother from?
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14621
    • Reputation: +7672/-2383
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Contra Cekadam: A response by Fr Cekada
    « Reply #14 on: June 14, 2018, 09:25:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Obviously there is debate on what Cum Ex means.

    Obviously, and that was precisely my point.  It's not just "that simple" that the See is still occupied.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16