Author Topic: Fr. Cekadas version of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (Read 12763 times)

2Vermont · « **Reply #15 on:** October 14, 2015, 04:32:23 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: TKGS
Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?

You're missing the point, as per usual. Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.

Tell me how it qualifies as UOM when it contradicts the UOM.

Tell me how the UOM was able to produce the Novus Ordo.

Where has anyone said that the UOM produced the NO? The UOM didn't produce the NO.

Since you are attributing the UOM to the NO, I would still like to see how you think that is possible since the NO contradicts the UOM.

What do you call 2000 bishops and a pope in a council if not the UOM?

Why yes, it would be the UOM if their teachings didn't contradict the UOM. But they did. Those teachings should have been infallible. They weren't. Why?

TKGS · « **Reply #16 on:** October 14, 2015, 04:36:06 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Or you're missing some distinction that would make them reconcilable. And THIS is the problem I have with SVism. You act as if it's certain with the certainty of faith that these two are in contradiction, but in point of fact you're using your private judgment to determine this.

Yes, it sure looks like it to me too, that these are in contradiction. But I also realize that my private judgment cannot resolve this matter with the requisite certainty. In fact, there's ZERO contradiction between these if you hold the same ecclesiology as most Traditional Catholics.

That's why I'm on the fence. If someone could convince me that my own ecclesiology is wrong and that of the Cushingites is right, then I immediately drop all opposition to Vatican II.

Actually, what you are saying above is that no one can really know what the Church teaches. Since no one really knows or even can know what the Church teaches, why bother?

Quote from: Stubborn

There is no such doctrine of the pope losing his office and both #1 and #2 are absolutely impossible.

Actually, the first part of your comment is utterly preposterous. It has been taught by popes and theologians for centuries. The teachings have been referenced on CathInfo often and is easily available to anyone who wants to actually know the truth.

Also, I agree with the second part of your statement. The problem is that you (and others on the forum) say that you believe both #1 and #2 are impossible while everything else you write say that you believe that both statements are, in fact, true. Those of us who are not Modernists and cannot believe contrary propositions simultaneously.

2Vermont · « **Reply #17 on:** October 14, 2015, 04:38:00 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: TKGS
Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?

You're missing the point, as per usual. Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.

IF this is the case, then the Catholic Church has always been a fraud. Vatican 2 taught doctrines that directly contradict doctrines the Church had always taught prior. I can see only two possibilities if the teachings of Vatican 2 are part of the Universal Ordinary (or Extraordinary) Magisterium):

1. The Church was wrong before Vatican 2.

2. The Church is wrong now.

In either case, the Church is wrong and is NOT INFALLIBLE in matters of Faith and Morals. In either case, the Church is a fraud.

On the other hand, IF Montini was not the pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church when he signed the docuмents of Vatican 2, then the doctrines of the Church, including the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, remain intact. The doctrine that a pope loses his office when he is manifestly and pertinaciously a heretic also remains intact.

There is no such doctrine of the pope losing his office and both #1 and #2 are absolutely impossible.

Quote from: TKGS

As per usual, Ladislaus and Stubborn and assorted others speak out of both sides of their mouths, believe irreconcilable truths, and are utterly unable to see the contradiction. They are Modernists in the most precise understanding of the term.

Funny thing is that Fr. Cekada clearly demonstrates blatant contradictions just like Modernists, yet you claim we speak out of both sides of our mouths and are unable to see the contradiction. That really would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

The truth is, as long as people adhere to Fr. Cekada's mangled version of infallibility and UOM, they will never see the forest due to all the trees being right dab smack in the way.

The reason that Fr. Cekada's version of infallibility is wrong, is because he preaches a version that has no foundation. His idea of "universal" is an ambiguous number of the Fathers or Theologians or saints or whatever.

His version has no foundation because his version of the infallibility of the UOM conveniently has no pope (go figure), hence no dogmatic decrees or supreme authority, so consequently, no infallibility. If there was ever proof that his version is wrong, then V2 is all anyone ever needs to stop his version dead in it's tracks.

In his version, a pope and 2000 bishops are the UOM and therefore, cannot teach error, but historical proof demonstrates that's exactly what happened at V2, so whatever your idea of infallibility and the UOM is, you can cross off his version as an epic fail.

Meanwhile you believe V2 was the UOM and yet refuse to submit to its infallible teaching? Why?

Somebody's version of infallibility is mangled .... but it's not Fr Cekada's. It's the R&R/SSPX position that is mangled.

Stubborn · « **Reply #18 on:** October 14, 2015, 04:51:25 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Meanwhile you believe V2 was the UOM and yet refuse to submit to its infallible teaching? Why?

Obviously it was not infallible. I gotta believe we will all agree that V2 was not infallible.

Quote from: 2Vermont

Somebody's version of infallibility is mangled .... but it's not Fr Cekada's. It's the R&R/SSPX position that is mangled.

Well now, think it out for a second. Don't just pop out with your opinion without examining the fraud that Fr. Cekada teaches.

Fr. Cekada preaches the UOM are always infallible and that whatever the UOM teach is always without error - those are his words, not mine. Direct your thoughts to the title of this thread.

Per Fr. Cekada, the UOM, which is always without error, which is always infallible, perpetrated upon us the Novus Ordo. With this in mind, simply explain how his version of UOM/Infallibility is *not* mangled?

Like I said, whatever your idea of UOM/infallibility might be, one thing you know for positive is that Fr. Cekada's version is obviously wrong. Either that or the NO is error free.

2Vermont · « **Reply #19 on:** October 14, 2015, 04:58:54 PM »

I have come to the conclusion that Stubborn is willfully blind. There is no way he can continue posting in this vein without seeing his own contradictions.

If the UOM is infallible, Stubborn, and you believe that V2 was the UOM, then V2 has to be infallible. You believe that the UOM's teachings were fallible at V2!

Fr Cekada doesn't believe that V2 represented the UOM; therefore he can believe that the V2 teachings were not infallible. He is absolutely consistent. You are not.

Stubborn · « **Reply #20 on:** October 14, 2015, 05:19:20 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

I have come to the conclusion that Stubborn is willfully blind. There is no way he can continue posting in this vein without seeing his own contradictions.

If the UOM is infallible, Stubborn, and you believe that V2 was the UOM, then V2 has to be infallible. You believe that the UOM's teachings were fallible at V2!

Fr Cekada doesn't believe that V2 represented the UOM; therefore he can believe that the V2 teachings were not infallible. He is absolutely consistent. You are not.

Oh, so Fr. Cekada doesn't believe that V2 represented the UOM; therefore he can believe that the V2 teachings were not infallible and for you, this belief makes him absolutely consistent and me willfully blind. That earns you a big face palm.

Did you ever consider that if he believed what the Church teaches instead of what he teaches, he would not be in such a position to choose to believe the UOM was not the UOM in order to justify his own novel teaching on the subject - and you would not have a fraudulent understanding of the UOM/infallibility?

2Vermont · « **Reply #21 on:** October 14, 2015, 05:27:00 PM »

lol..and you keep calling the UOM fallible at V2 as do all the R&R folk.

Arvinger · « **Reply #22 on:** October 14, 2015, 06:10:11 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

In his version, a pope and 2000 bishops are the UOM and therefore, cannot teach error, but historical proof demonstrates that's exactly what happened at V2, so whatever your idea of infallibility and the UOM is, you can cross off his version as an epic fail.

Not sure about Fr Cekada, but +Sanborn in is clear in his writings that according to him the Conciliar hierarchy is not Catholic hierarchy in any way, shape or form. Thus, according to this version of the sedevacantist position it is really simple - V2 was heretical, thus pope and 2000 bishops who taught and promulgated its teachings ceased to be Catholics, so V2 is not part of UOM, but a non-Catholic council with no authority. So according to +Sanborn's position (as I understand it) V2 did not come from "a pope and 2000 bishops", it did not come from the Church, but from the apostates.

Obviously, there are numerous theological problems with that (Church losing at least one of its marks, defection of the whole hierarchy etc.), but at least you can't say that it is inconsistent.

Stubborn · « **Reply #23 on:** October 14, 2015, 06:10:14 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

lol..and you keep calling the UOM fallible at V2 as do all the R&R folk.

You are a victim of Fr. Cekada, which is why you refuse to acknowledge the obvious contradiction in his teaching and invent silly excuses out of desperation to be right.

Your lame excuse comes right out of a comic book when you said:

Quote from: 2Vermont

Fr Cekada doesn't believe that V2 represented the UOM; therefore he can believe that the V2 teachings were not infallible. He is absolutely consistent.

Remember Fr. Cekada's own definition of the UOM which I quoted in the OP:

Quote from: Fr. Cekada

The UOM once again is this - the teaching of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, that is to say the pope and bishops together, throughout the world, whether in council or dispersed throughout the world concerning faith and morals. Now this teaching too as Catholics, we are obliged to believe, it is always free from error, and it is that very teaching that puts the lie to the notion that the post V2 church represents the true Church of Christ.

As a rule, all Cekadians have an false idea about infallibility, what it is and how it works. This adulterated idea not only enforces and encourages contradictions, but Cekadians us it as an escape mechanism to justify these contradictions within themselves even if they must stoop to the lamest of lame excuses to do it, and no amount of indisputable reasoning seems to impact them in the slightest.

Stubborn · « **Reply #24 on:** October 14, 2015, 06:18:50 PM »

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Stubborn

In his version, a pope and 2000 bishops are the UOM and therefore, cannot teach error, but historical proof demonstrates that's exactly what happened at V2, so whatever your idea of infallibility and the UOM is, you can cross off his version as an epic fail.

Not sure about Fr Cekada, but +Sanborn in is clear in his writings that according to him the Conciliar hierarchy is not Catholic hierarchy in any way, shape or form and the Conciliar Church is not and has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Thus, according to this version of the sedevacantist position it is really simple - V2 was heretical, thus pope and 2000 bishops who taught and promulgated its teachings ceased to be Catholics, so V2 is not part of UOM, but a non-Catholic council with no authority. So according to +Sanborn's position (as I understand it) V2 did not come from "a pope and 2000 bishops", it did not come from the Church, but from the apostates.

Obviously, there are numerous theological problems with that (Church losing at least one of its marks, defection of the whole hierarchy etc.), but at least you can't say that it is inconsistent.

Yes, I am very familiar with +Sanborn. I watched him convince himself to go from a wonderfully devout and strong young priest, into a sedevacantist.

Disgust is what drove him to it, not doctrine. Disgust at PPVI's actions.

Him and Fr. Cekada and all the SVs together can believe the UOM is not the UOM - even after defining it as well as he did in his own video. Their disbelief does not change the fact that the UOM Fr. Cekada defines gave us the NO.

Not sure what religion they preach who define the UOM then say the UOM is not the UOM in order to justify their own opinion, but we know that's not what Catholics do.

Arvinger · « **Reply #25 on:** October 14, 2015, 06:39:42 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Him and Fr. Cekada and all the SVs together can believe the UOM is not the UOM - even after defining it as well as he did in his own video. Their disbelief does not change the fact that the UOM Fr. Cekada defines gave us the NO.

Not sure what religion they preach who define the UOM then say the UOM is not the UOM in order to justify their own opinion, but we know that's not what Catholics do.

I'm not sure I understand your objection. According to +Sanborn's position V2 did not come from the UOM as defined by Fr Cekada because Paul VI was not a Pope and the bishops at the Council were not Catholic hierarchy. This, although I don't endorse this position, seems perfectly consistent to me (erroneus - very likely, but not inconsistent).

here +Sanborn explicitly says that according to him the Conciliar Church has just the same authority as the Lutheran Church of America and it is a completely false Church. So, according to him, V2 came from the false Church, not from UOM as defined by Fr Cekada. This is unlike other sedevacantists such as John Lane, who (as far as I remember) argued that Novus Ordo bishops can still be valid hierarchy because an anti-Pope can appoint valid bishops through supplied jurisdiction for the good of the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #26 on:** October 14, 2015, 06:58:10 PM »

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Stubborn

Him and Fr. Cekada and all the SVs together can believe the UOM is not the UOM - even after defining it as well as he did in his own video. Their disbelief does not change the fact that the UOM Fr. Cekada defines gave us the NO.

Not sure what religion they preach who define the UOM then say the UOM is not the UOM in order to justify their own opinion, but we know that's not what Catholics do.

I'm not sure I understand your objection. According to +Sanborn's position V2 did not come from the UOM as defined by Fr Cekada because Paul VI was not a Pope and the bishops at the Council were not Catholic hierarchy. This, although I don't endorse this position, seems perfectly consistent to me (erroneus - very likely, but not inconsistent).

Right. And I think I outlined this in my first post here. V2 doesn't meet the definition of the UOM due to missing the "in union with the pope" part. On the other hand, the V1 definition of UOM also states that something must be taught as divinely revealed by the UOM in order to be infallible. But I also believe, contrary to R&R, that something like an Ecuмenical Council MUST be at least infallibly safe with regard to any substantial teaching it would make, that it can't be radically wrong. Otherwise, the Magisterium would have defected. My issue with SVism has always been fact that PRIVATE JUDGMENT is being applied in order to discern the alleged contradiction; so THIS is the weakest link in the entire logic chain.

2Vermont · « **Reply #27 on:** October 14, 2015, 07:03:16 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Arvinger
Quote from: Stubborn

Him and Fr. Cekada and all the SVs together can believe the UOM is not the UOM - even after defining it as well as he did in his own video. Their disbelief does not change the fact that the UOM Fr. Cekada defines gave us the NO.

Not sure what religion they preach who define the UOM then say the UOM is not the UOM in order to justify their own opinion, but we know that's not what Catholics do.

I'm not sure I understand your objection. According to +Sanborn's position V2 did not come from the UOM as defined by Fr Cekada because Paul VI was not a Pope and the bishops at the Council were not Catholic hierarchy. This, although I don't endorse this position, seems perfectly consistent to me (erroneus - very likely, but not inconsistent).

Right. And I think I outlined this in my first post here. V2 doesn't meet the definition of the UOM due to missing the "in union with the pope" part. On the other hand, the V1 definition of UOM also states that something must be taught as divinely revealed by the UOM in order to be infallible. But I also believe, contrary to R&R, that something like an Ecuмenical Council MUST be at least infallibly safe with regard to any substantial teaching it would make, that it can't be radically wrong. Otherwise, the Magisterium would have defected. My issue with SVism has always been fact that PRIVATE JUDGMENT is being applied in order to discern the alleged contradiction; so THIS is the weakest link in the entire logic chain.

Either V2 was an ecuмenical council or it was not. If it was and it meets the criteria, then what it taught would be infallible. It still ends up the same issue. If it's a true council of the Catholic Church then it is infallible. But R&R folk continue to say that it was fallible. In other words, the Magisterium defected.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #28 on:** October 14, 2015, 07:03:36 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Why yes, it would be the UOM if their teachings didn't contradict the UOM. But they did. Those teachings should have been infallible. They weren't. Why?

Two issues here.

1) "But they did..." Says who? Looks that way to me too. But who am I? Nobody.

2) V1 stated that UOM is infallible when proposing something as "divinely revealed". So I don't believe that everything or even anything in Vatican II necessarily met the notes of infallibility in the strict sense. I do believe, however, as I said above, that V2 should have been protected in the broader sense (as explained by Msgr. Fenton) from being substantially or radically erroneous so that one must reject it in order to preserve one's faith. To posit that, as R&R does, would be tantamount to positing the defection of the Magisterium. Not to mention the defection of the Universal Discipline of the Church vis-a-vis the NOM.

2Vermont · « **Reply #29 on:** October 14, 2015, 07:05:26 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont
Why yes, it would be the UOM if their teachings didn't contradict the UOM. But they did. Those teachings should have been infallible. They weren't. Why?

Two issues here.

1) "But they did..." Says who? Looks that way to me too. But who am I? Nobody.

2) V1 stated that UOM is infallible when proposing something as "divinely revealed". So I don't believe that everything or even anything in Vatican II necessarily met the notes of infallibility in the strict sense. I do believe, however, as I said above, that V2 should have been protected in the broader sense (as explained by Msgr. Fenton) from being substantially or radically erroneous so that one must reject it in order to preserve one's faith. To posit that, as R&R does, would be tantamount to positing the defection of the Magisterium. Not to mention the defection of the Universal Discipline of the Church vis-a-vis the NOM.

So based on #2, we can make the logical conclusion in #1.