Author Topic: Fr. Cekadas version of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (Read 12781 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #30 on:** October 14, 2015, 07:20:30 PM »

Quote from: Arvinger

[Traditionalists, and even many Novus Ordites who believe in salvation through invincible ignorance insist that the infidels are saved "in their religion", but not "through their religion" (as Archbishop Lefebvre unfortunately taught), while Vatican II teaches that false religions themselves have positive qualities and bring their adherents closer to God.

But this "in" vs. "by" distinction is completely made up and has no foundation in the Catholic Magisterium. In fact, the dogma is no salvation EXCEPT WITHIN the Church, not no salvation EXCEPT BY MEANS OF the Church.

Let's assume for a minute that a Jew can be saved by virtue of his belief in the Rewarder God. Where did this Jew come to believe in the Rewarder God? Through his religion. So one could argue that the religion can save MATERIALLY even though it's the underlying FORMAL faith that is salvific. So their false religion can in fact materially and instrumentally be a means of salvation ... though not formally the means of salvation. Let's say that an infant was baptized by the Orthodox and dies before reaching the age of reason. Again, materially, this person was saved by means of the Orthodox religion, though formally by the Catholic religion.

So a simple application of the formal/material distinction can salvage this apparent contradiction.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** October 14, 2015, 07:34:43 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

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.

I don't understand. If there's no contradiction then #2 isn't even an issue.

TKGS · « **Reply #32 on:** October 14, 2015, 08:29:39 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.

You ask a good question.

Do YOU actually know any doctrine of the Catholic Church? How do you know it is a doctrine?

Cantarella · « **Reply #33 on:** October 14, 2015, 10:22:44 PM »

Quote from: Arvinger

I agree with your point that the main errors of Vatican II are in regard to ecclesiology and soteriology and that many Traditionalists unfortunately hold them too, nevertheless I think that the "Cushingite" ecclesiology is not the only problem of Vatican II and even adopting it is not enough to "drop all opposition to Vatican II". There are still scandalous statements in Nostra Aetate regarding false religions - Traditionalists, and even many Novus Ordites who believe in salvation through invincible ignorance insist that the infidels are saved "in their religion", but not "through their religion" (as Archbishop Lefebvre unfortunately taught), while Vatican II teaches that false religions themselves have positive qualities and bring their adherents closer to God. This gave rise to heresies expressed by V2 Popes and members of the Conciliar Church that the Old Covenant is still valid and Jews can be saved by it, that Muslims can be saved through observing Islam, that God manifests himself to people through false religions (explicitly taught by John Paul II in Redemptoris Misso) etc. On the other hand, Traditionalists who unfortunately hold to salvation through invincible ignorance nevertheless believe that false religions are an abomination for God and people are not saved through them. So the error of Vatican II is much deeper than that of "Cushingite" Traditionalists.

In short:
1. Vatican II and Conciliar Church: people are saved in non-Catholic Churches/non-Christian religions and these Churches/religions are positive means of their salvation.
2. "Cushingite" Traditionalists: false religions are an abomination and the non-Catholic Churches are heretical, but people in them can be saved in spite of that.

Even though both positions are erroneous, the difference is crucial - Vatican II position taken to its logical conclusion leads to the endorsement of false religions (for which the V2 Popes are indeed notorious) and the ecuмenical apostasy we see right now, while "Cushingite" Traditionalists' position does not.

Then we have Vatican II's admiration of man expressed especially in Gaudium et Spes, which gave rise to humanism and anthropocentrism we are observing currently in the Conciliar Church.

Finally, the problem with Vatican II is not only its explicit teachings, but also employed modernist hermeneutics which became rampant after the Council and which notoriously mark the later Papal docuмents and actions of the Conciliar hierarchy.

None of this begins overnight in Vatican II Council but actually precedes it. The apostasy has been relentlessly gradual and has as root the new ecclesiology coming from "Salvation Outside the Church" (no matter how the Judaizers want to call it: invincible ignorance, salvation by implicit desire, salvation by grace alone, etc etc...at the end, it is simply salvation without the catholic Sacraments). See Fr. Bourmaud's book "100 years of Modernism".

One Hundred Years of Modernism: A Genealogy of the Principles of the Second Vatican Council

by Dominic Bourmaud

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1892331438/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1892331438&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

It is the Salvific Implicit Faith theory (a degradation of the original Baptism of Desire theory proper, this is, strictly for catechumens) which precisely gives way to the Rahnerian's theory of Universal Salvation and ends up in the Prayer at Assisi. One thing leads to the other because to compromise even in one point of doctrine is to fall into a hellish slippery slope which the enemies of the Church are more than ready to take advantage of.

The Cushingite" Traditionalists' fail to make this simple connection between denial of EENS and the novelties of Religious Liberty, False Ecuмenism, and other Modernists ills. If a person in a false religion can be said to be in the state of Sanctifying Grace and be the temple of the Holy Ghost why refuse to pray with them or/and impose the Catholic religion upon them if there is a slight chance for them to get to Heaven?

This article applies to most 'traditionalists' on why they cannot effectively defend Tradition:

http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm

2Vermont · « **Reply #34 on:** October 15, 2015, 04:20:39 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont
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.

I don't understand. If there's no contradiction then #2 isn't even an issue.

Every true Trad believes there are contradictions. If a person doesn't know for sure that there are contradictions then that person shouldn't even call themselves a Trad, start attending the NO and follow Vatican II and its hierarchy.

2Vermont · « **Reply #35 on:** October 15, 2015, 04:46:13 AM »

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).

Actually, it is the pope along with the bishops at an ecuмenical council that make it infallible. It is the pope that finalizes the deal so to speak.

Stubborn · « **Reply #36 on:** October 15, 2015, 05:25:48 AM »

Quote from: Arvinger

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).

My objection lies in the lengths +Sanborn, Fr. Cekada and apparently all Cekadians will go to in order to justify their opinion in their attempt to be consistent. It amounts to one fallacy leading to another and to another, even to the point of denying contradiction where it obviously exists, and only for the purpose of justifying their opinion about, as Fr. Cekada states it, "the pope problem". That is what it's all about, it all revolves around and points directly back too, "the pope problem".

Here in the picture below, according to Fr. Cekada, is the UOM, that is, the pope and all the bishops together in Council, albeit at V2.

If the V2 popes, were not popes, and the bishops were not bishops, hence the V2 UOM was not the UOM, then all 2500+ of them were not the UOM *before* entering the Council in 1962. They all defected or otherwise lost their offices on account of their heresies sometime before October 11, 1962, which was when V2 convened.

1) When exactly and 2) what heresies exactly did they *all* profess which no one knew about that caused them ipso facto to lose their offices before 1962? It had to happen before the Council because per Fr. Cekada, once they are in Council, "they are always free from error". And by now, 53 years later, certainly there is some kind of evidence, however weak or strong it may be, to substantiate such an obviously absurd claim.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** October 15, 2015, 09:18:08 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: 2Vermont
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.

I don't understand. If there's no contradiction then #2 isn't even an issue.

Every true Trad believes there are contradictions. If a person doesn't know for sure that there are contradictions then that person shouldn't even call themselves a Trad, start attending the NO and follow Vatican II and its hierarchy.

We have determined, based upon our own private judgment, that there are irreconcilable contradictions. Unfortunately that is not enough to "depose" popes. It suffices to have doubts and for us to suspend our judgment regarding these matters until the Church intervenes. So, for instance, I do not believe in religious liberty due to the teaching of the Magisterium. I cannot therefore at the same time believe in religious liberty due to Vatican II. Consequently, I suspend my intellectual assent towards the teaching of Vatican II until such a time as the Church would either clarify the distinctions that would allow me to assent at the same time to both the pre Vatican II Magisterium AND the Vatican II Magisterium or else the Church declares Vatican II null and void. I cannot assent to two contradictory propositions at the same time. But that's AS FAR AS our private judgment can take us.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** October 15, 2015, 09:20:18 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

If the V2 popes, were not popes, and the bishops were not bishops, hence the V2 UOM was not the UOM, then all 2500+ of them were not the UOM *before* entering the Council in 1962. They all defected or otherwise lost their offices on account of their heresies sometime before October 11, 1962, which was when V2 convened.

Yes, this is a problem. Of course, it would suffice for JUST the Pope to not be legitimate for the V2 UOM not to be protected by the Holy Spirit. But there's still a problem. Did all the V2 bishops magically defect at some specific point in time?

Stubborn · « **Reply #39 on:** October 15, 2015, 09:59:53 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Stubborn
If the V2 popes, were not popes, and the bishops were not bishops, hence the V2 UOM was not the UOM, then all 2500+ of them were not the UOM *before* entering the Council in 1962. They all defected or otherwise lost their offices on account of their heresies sometime before October 11, 1962, which was when V2 convened.

Yes, this is a problem. Of course, it would suffice for JUST the Pope to not be legitimate for the V2 UOM not to be protected by the Holy Spirit. But there's still a problem. Did all the V2 bishops magically defect at some specific point in time?

True, but not only that, it *could* also just as easily mean just one bishop not being a legitimate bishop - it can all depend on what each person's private interpretation of "universal" is. +Sanborn just shot the whole bunch of 'em at the same time, enabling him to wash his hands of the whole mess entirely in one fell swoop.

A strict interpretation of "Universal" means 100% of the pope and all bishops and hierarchy, but it could also mean 99.9%, or 50.000001%, then again it could mean whatever you want it to mean to justify your position. For example, Fr. Cekada has an article with 23 unknown theologians and two popular ones - he claims these represent the UOM which guarantee that a BOD is an infallible teaching of the UOM.

The whole concept as Fr. Cekada presents it has no absolutes, and by design is open ended so as to be specifically ambiguous, which of course allows it to mean whatever you want it to mean - but only just as long as it jives with common opinion as established by himself. In the case of V2, it means the UOM was not the UOM. That is how he gift wraps his contradictions, and the people who follow the Cekadian way, accept it

TKGS · « **Reply #40 on:** October 15, 2015, 10:13:45 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

We have determined, based upon our own private judgment, that there are irreconcilable contradictions. Unfortunately that is not enough to "depose" popes. It suffices to have doubts and for us to suspend our judgment regarding these matters until the Church intervenes. So, for instance, I do not believe in religious liberty due to the teaching of the Magisterium. I cannot therefore at the same time believe in religious liberty due to Vatican II. Consequently, I suspend my intellectual assent towards the teaching of Vatican II until such a time as the Church would either clarify the distinctions that would allow me to assent at the same time to both the pre Vatican II Magisterium AND the Vatican II Magisterium or else the Church declares Vatican II null and void. I cannot assent to two contradictory propositions at the same time. But that's AS FAR AS our private judgment can take us.

Though you have already absolutely condemned me in various posts as either mentally incompetent or of bad will, I truly want to understand your position on these matters. I have not been able to understand what I perceive as a contradiction in your own thinking. But it seems to me that some light is shining on your thinking based upon your comments here.

Please explain why you accept the doctrines concerning religious liberty taught prior to Vatican 2 but not the doctrines concerning religious liberty taught after Vatican 2. Is this choice of which Magisterial teaching you believe simply a matter of preference or do you have a principle by which you make that choice.

And, since you suspend your intellectual assent to the post Vatican 2 Magisterium on the matter, does that necessarily mean that those who have fully accepted the post Vatican 2 Magisterial teachings on religious liberty (and all the ecuмenical activities that flow from that teaching) are fully, 100% Catholic while they actively participate in Jєωιѕн, Islamic, and Pagan religious ceremonies?

While you probably doubt me, I am asking these questions truly in good faith.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** October 15, 2015, 10:21:45 AM »

TKGS, when I say that I have suspended my assent, this means that I withhold my assent to the V2 teaching. Why? Simpy because I cannot assent to two contradictory propositions. I do in fact perceive the V2 teaching to contradict previous Magisterium. So until such a time as I could come to understand V2 religious liberty in such a way and with such distinctions as would make it no longer contradict the previous Magisterium, then I cannot assent to it.

But I recognize that my judgment regarding the existence of said contradiction is rooted in my own private judgment, and therefore is liable to be mistaken. Is there some distinction that I'm missing? Also, if I were to accept the Cushingite ecclesiology held by most Traditional Catholics, the reconciliation in my mind is very very simple. So that explains why the EENS issues is of paramount importance to me. From the standpoint of my own "Feeneyite" ecclesiology (aka "Thomistic" ecclesiology, since BoD is not absolutely critical to this), V2 is absolutely riddled with error. From the standpoint of Cushingite ecclesiology, V2 is easily reconcilable with prior Magisterium.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #42 on:** October 15, 2015, 10:30:49 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Please explain why you accept the doctrines concerning religious liberty taught prior to Vatican 2 but not the doctrines concerning religious liberty taught after Vatican 2. Is this choice of which Magisterial teaching you believe simply a matter of preference or do you have a principle by which you make that choice.

Because I cannot assent to two contradictory propositions at the same time. Yet, all the while, I recognize that my conclusion that they are contradictory comes from my own private judgment. But am I missing something? Most Traditional Catholics see only: Pre-Vatican II -- no religious liberty, Post-Vatican II -- religious liberty. But are we missing some crucial distinction? I cannot rule this out because I am not infallible.

Quote

And, since you suspend your intellectual assent to the post Vatican 2 Magisterium on the matter, does that necessarily mean that those who have fully accepted the post Vatican 2 Magisterial teachings on religious liberty (and all the ecuмenical activities that flow from that teaching) are fully, 100% Catholic while they actively participate in Jєωιѕн, Islamic, and Pagan religious ceremonies?

No, I don't think that this follows. Clearly their understanding of religious liberty as evidenced by their praxis certainly contradicts the pre-Vatican II Magisterium regarding such matters. But then lots of people have read lots of things into Vatican II. I'm interested in what the actual teaching of V2 is rather than in how various types might or might not interpret it. I'm not sure that the ecuмenical activity is an example of religious liberty. Depending on who it is, it could be perceived differently. More than anything, it implies a rejection of EENS and puts into practice the V2 ecclesiology. But I'd rather not digress into that.

Quote

While you probably doubt me, I am asking these questions truly in good faith.

No, I take your word for it. I have no reason to doubt you. It's easy to get irritated with one another and get entrenched in the different positions. I try to keep an open mind and listen to all arguments on all sides. At the end of the day, I only wish to do and to believe what God wants. Otherwise, we run the risk of going off the rails by following whatever opinion tickles our fancy.

TKGS · « **Reply #43 on:** October 15, 2015, 11:35:38 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I'm interested in what the actual teaching of V2 is rather than in how various types might or might not interpret it.

But aren't the Conciliar bishops along with the Conciliar pope who are ruling dioceses all over the world today the authentic interpreters of what Vatican 2 actually teaches? Should we not all just take their general teachings, their catechisms, and their actions at face value as the authentic interpretation of the Council since they seem, at least on the doctrines of religious liberty and ecuмenism, to be virtually 100% united?

Is there even one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who holds a See of a diocese that publicly rejects religious liberty or ecuмenical activities? I would think that if there was, it would be big news on "The Vortex" as well as in both the conservative Catholic press and even the secular press (though one would praise and other denounce).

I really don't understand why you don't know what the Conciliar Magisterium teaches about these subjects.

ubipetrus · « **Reply #44 on:** October 15, 2015, 12:29:20 PM »

Some observations:
First of all, the problem is not unique to "SVism" but faced by all Catholics: For nearly 2,000 years the Church has authoritatively and infallibly and irrevocably taught certain things to be true, and rejected others as false. And then come Vatican II which throws all of that out the window. Just trying to discover what it takes to save our own soul is quite enough, to say nothing of figuring out how it happened or what it would take to restore things and prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again.
Getting back to Fr. Cekada's talk (great sermon, Fr.!) the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) is infallible, pure and simple, per the Church's own teaching, Pope Pius XII:

Quote

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth Me"; (Lk. 10:16) and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Humani Generis, Paragraph 20).

Even more to the point, Msgr. G. Van Noort writes in Volume 2 page 330:

Quote

PROPOSITION. The college of bishops, whether gathered in an ecuмenical council, or dispersed throughout the world but morally united to the supreme pontiff, in its teaching on matters of faith and morals, is infallible.
This proposition is of faith.

So the real question is "What about Vatican II?" If it were to have belonged to the UOM then it too would have to be infallible and God has contradicted Himself. Clearly (though he does not mention it in the sermon) Fr. does not count Vatican II as part of that UOM or else he really would be as self-contradictory as some here have accused him of being. Now, the participants of Vatican II do seem to have been "morally united to Paul VI." If, in being united to Paul VI were they therefore united to the supreme pontiff? If so then that is a very big problem which can never be solved. If not then that is Fr.'s solution (SVism).
But the problem does run deeper in that the Church cannot have defected. Who, therefore, was "the Church" while all these prelates were tricked into signing things they should never have signed and (for the most part) would not have signed had they truly understood their content, import, and necessary ramifications?