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

Also, Fr. Cekada shows just how wildly misleading Robert J. Siscoe's CFN article was:

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

A quote from the first link above:

C. The “Pope-by-Default” Objections. Defeated by an unassailable general principle that leads to a logical conclusion, the R&R camp will no doubt continue to offer the usual “Pope-by-default” objections, implying these can somehow turn a heretic into a true pope by default. “The Church must  have one, and who else is there?” Here are the common ones, together with responses, based on the teachings of various pre-Vatican II theologians:

1. Vatican I taught there would be “perpetual successors” in the Primacy. Response: “Perpetual successors” means that the office of the Primacy is perpetual — was not limited to St. Peter alone, but  “a power that will perpetually endure to the end of the world.” (Salaverri, de Ecclesia 1:385)

2.    A long vacancy would change the nature of the Church. The monarchical nature of the Church “does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head.Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, is not so strictly necessary.” (Dorsch, de Ecclesia 2:196–7)

3.    How could we then get a true pope one day? The various theories are direct divine intervention, the material/formal thesis and an imperfect general council, the latter of which is taught by the theologian Cajetan. (de Comparatione 13, 742, 745)

4.    Sedevacantism destroys the visibility of the Church. There is nothing to prevent the Church from being reduced to a small number (“the Son of Man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth,” Lk 18:8). Moreover, the very purpose of visibility — the Church as the “column of truth to the nations” — is defeated by the heresies of the post-Vatican II body.

5.    The universal acceptance of the post-Conciliar popes confirms that they are true popes. Circular argument: Heretics, who are outside the Church, confirm as head of the Church another heretic who is outside the Church. Well, nice if you can manage it! And besides, sedevacantists reject the post-Vatican II popes. What are we? Chopped liver? So the acceptance is clearly not universal.

6.    It is impossible that so many Catholics could be wrong and only the sedevacantists right. “There seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time.” (Berry, Church of Christ, 155)

I have to say that this quote answers all of Nishant's objections very well.

These, in very concise form, are the same responses many of us have been making to these objections here at CI.

Really the most serious objections are

1) the perpetual successors

and

5) universal acceptance

Father Cekada did not spend enough time on #1 to really refute the argument.  What does it mean for the "power" of the papacy to be perpetual?  It's obvious that the absence of an actual Pope does not cause the power to cease.  Are we talking about juridical continuity?  What do we mean here?  He should elaborate on that.

With regard to #5, the reason that universal acceptance is considered the criterion for establishing the dogmatic fact of the papacy is precisely because theologians consider this universal acceptance (by the episcopate) to be infallible, since anything else would lead to a defection of the Church.  Yet these same bishops can fail by universally teaching the errors of Vatican II?  That doesn't make sense.  If they can fail by promulgating Vatican II and universally accepting and promulgating the New Mass, then why can't they have failed in acknowledging a false Pope?  Such acknowledgement cannot con-validate a faulty election either.

What's interesting, though, is that the infallibility of the episcopate has always been tied to the papacy.  If the bishops were to hold an Ecuмenical Council but in the end the Pope were to reject it as a "Robber Council", then it would not have any infallibility or authority on its own.

A number of people have shown Robert Siscoe's article to be filled with errors. Mr. Siscoe has an agenda and intends to "prove" it at any cost. Fr. Cekada hasn't done anything original here, although he'd like for you to think he has.

That's my complaint as well of the Three Barristeers of the R&R (Ferrara, Salza & Siscoe): They devote more ink (or pixels) to trying to score stylistic polemic than they do engaging the actual content of sede arguments.

They should just pick a champion among themselves and have him go head-to-head with Fr Cekada in a public debate.

1. Vatican I taught there would be “perpetual successors” in the Primacy. Response: “Perpetual successors” means that the office of the Primacy is perpetual — was not limited to St. Peter alone, but  “a power that will perpetually endure to the end of the world.” (Salaverri, de Ecclesia 1:385)

This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors.  It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.  

The doctrine of Perpetual Succession made in First Vatican Council is vitally important for dogmatic purity, because the primary way that Satan attempts to corrupt Christ’s doctrines is by getting men to move away from the Church’s dogmas as they were once declared. There is no meaning of a dogma other than what the words themselves state and declare, so the Devil tries to get men to “understand” and “interpret” these words in a way that is different from how the Church has declared them.  There is only one way to believe dogma: as Holy Mother Church has declared it.

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SJB

A number of people have shown Robert Siscoe's article to be filled with errors. Mr. Siscoe has an agenda and intends to "prove" it at any cost. Fr. Cekada hasn't done anything original here, although he'd like for you to think he has.

That's my complaint as well of the Three Barristeers of the R&R (Ferrara, Salza & Siscoe): They devote more ink (or pixels) to trying to score stylistic polemic than they do engaging the actual content of sede arguments.

They should just pick a champion among themselves and have him go head-to-head with Fr Cekada in a public debate.

My point was that Fr. Cekada isn't the one to lead the sede side of the debate.

I personally would take John Lane over most SV clergy.  Though I think Bishop Pivuranus might be an improvement over Cekeda.  There are probably plenty of well-informed clergy that could do so that are not out in cyber space so much.  At least I would hope so.  

We have seen lay-people do a better job in presenting the Thuc issue (Mario Derksen), the SV is (Gregorious - if he is a lay-person) and the SV issue (John Lane).  I'm not sure if that is a sad commentary on the clergy or proof on how busy they are traveling the country saving souls.  If the later they certainly are to be more esteemed.

I'll repeat what I said in a different thread:

Quote

Speaking of respect...

On the other hand, I have serious misgivings about any priest who runs a website with his name followed by ".com".

I understand that IN THEORY it is the same as St. Anthony Mary Claret writing his numerous books, tracts, etc. He was extremely busy and managed his time very well. However, he was also very holy.

But we all know there's something different about handing a man a pamphlet personally and putting up a website. Wifi and Ethernet connections are no substitute for a personal connection.

At any rate, I couldn't see [St. Anthony Mary Claret] actively participating on a forum like Fisheaters, for example. Or starting a blog named after him (!) of all things. If someone like St. Anthony Mary Claret started an informative apologetics website, for example, it would be more generic and the author would be anonymous.

The priest I'm talking about, on the other hand, mostly talks about controversy in the Trad world, and is trying to convert every *Trad* to his own group's way of thinking. The rest of the world? His website has almost no value.

And this would be as true with a R & R Priest as with a SV Priest I am sure.  

Quote from: Cantarella

This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors.  It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.

Come on, Cantarella; think past your personal bias against sedevacantism.  Your "correct/literal/uninterpreted" understanding of this dogma would have it be violated every time a pope dies.  So clearly the perpetual succession must be understood in some other way than the constant material occupation of the Holy See by some person or another.

Father Cekada has, however, completely glossed over the question of what it means for the "power" of the Papacy to endure in the context of a sedevacante.

I'm less knowledgeable than Father but I believe the "power" you refer to would be that the Chair of the Papacy is perpetually there waiting to be filled by a Catholic male above the age of reason.  If the Chair were a person it would be getting impatient by now and wondering what the problem is, but it would still be there.  

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Cantarella

This is an example of a common modernist error: twisting the clear meaning of an already defined dogma approved by the Holy Ghost in order to fit the current agenda. Dogmatic statements mean what they say and say whet the mean. Nothing further. No authority in the Church can change the clear meaning of infallible dogma which is what they are trying to do with the dogma of Perpetual Succession. Vatican I clearly teaches that Blessed Peter has TRUE and perpetual papal successors.  It was not just referring to the Papacy as such being endless, as sedevacantists want to pretend by changing the clear meaning of an already established dogma.

Come on, Cantarella; think past your personal bias against sedevacantism.  Your "correct/literal/uninterpreted" understanding of this dogma would have it be violated every time a pope dies.  So clearly the perpetual succession must be understood in some other way than the constant material occupation of the Holy See by some person or another.

Father Cekada has, however, completely glossed over the question of what it means for the "power" of the Papacy to endure in the context of a sedevacante.

I'm less knowledgeable than Father but I believe the "power" you refer to would be that the Chair of the Papacy is perpetually there waiting to be filled by a Catholic male above the age of reason.  If the Chair were a person it would be getting impatient by now and wondering what the problem is, but it would still be there.  

I'm thinking it has to be more than that, though.  Otherwise, you could have the chair sitting there empty for 1000 years.  There has to be some mechanism of continuity, probably a juridical one, that must perdure through sedevacante.  Father Cekada should probably explain that one; I would be interested in seeing the fruits of his research on that matter.

I would be interested as well.  I am not sure any SVs have answered that question.  Perhaps you can check on the Bellarmine forum.  But it really might not be any more than that.  Things happen at the end that never happen during.  The R and R's say it never happened before.  But nothing happened before until it happened the first time.  If you come across an answer to your objection please let me know.