Quote from: Fr. Cekada

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_7V64ozJXM&feature=youtu.be

At about 7:25, Fr. Cekada says;
"Now, the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, what does that mean? [he answers]  That is the teaching of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, that is to say the pope and bishops together, whether in council or whether dispersed throughout the world concerning faith and morals.........now this teaching too is infallible, this teaching too, is free from error."
 

At about 10:10 he goes on;
"The Universal Extraordinary and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium both [are] infallible. The Extraordinary Magisterium, these rare solemn pronouncements, are somehow not more infallible than the ordinary magisterium, nor does it somehow trump the teaching of the UOM because the idea is that the truth is one.............both are part of the same magisterium, both teach the same thing, both must be believed."


A little further on he says; "it is the UOM that proves the falsehood of Vatican 2 and proves the loss of authority on the part of the post conciliar popes, so called. That the dealing of V2 on matters such as religious liberty, contradicts the previous teaching of the UOM, and therefore, cannot be accepted, must be rejected as something that is heretical because it contradicts what the Church has taught before.


20:47
Catholics are obliged then to give the ascent of faith, not only to doctrines that are expressly defined in the rare solemn pronouncements of popes and ecuмenical councils, but also to those teachings that are propose by the UOM.

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.  

I watched this video and can hardly believe how blatantly Fr. confuses and contradicts his own definition of the infallibility of the UOM. Anyone else see this?

Per Fr. Cekada:
The UOM is the teaching of the pope and bishops together in Council.
The UOM is infallible.
The UOM is always free from error.
The UOM must be believed.



Yet, the Novus Ordo, because it is the teaching of the pope and bishops together in the Second Vatican Council, is, by his own definition, a teaching of the UOM - this much is indisputable. As such, V2 is therefore infallible and must be believed. But per Fr. Cekada, the UOM must be believed, just not in this case?  :scratchchin:

Is Fr. Cekada an accurate representative of SV theology here? Because what he teaches in that video is not representative of Catholic theology and decidedly misrepresents Catholic teaching on infallibility.  

Aren't you not seeing that which is the whole point?  Is he not saying that because A. the UOM is infallible and must be accepted, and B.  VII is clearly in error, ergo C. it is NOT the UOM (by their fruits you shall KNOW them)  corollary, these clowns are usurpers.  

Correct me if I understand the argument incorrectly.  Surely creates a mystery,  but not as difficult as reconciling a clearly heretical council and a bunch of goofs into something it's not, Catholic.  

So, Stubborn, since you have made it quite clear that you believe that V2 was the infallible UOM, why don't you agree with the teachings of V2?

Aren't you not seeing that which is the whole point?  Is he not saying that because A. the UOM is infallible and must be accepted, and B.  VII is clearly in error, ergo C. it is NOT the UOM (by their fruits you shall KNOW them)  corollary, these clowns are usurpers.  

Correct me if I understand the argument incorrectly.  Surely creates a mystery,  but not as difficult as reconciling a clearly heretical council and a bunch of goofs into something it's not, Catholic.  

You have it correct, he defines the UOM as infallible when in council with the pope, then he says V2, which was comprised of the UOM as he defines it, was not the UOM at all. He presumably does this to attempt to defend the doctrine of infallibility? Or is it to attempt to prove the UOM and pope are fakes, or they all or some percentage of them lost their offices sometime prior to 1962? - which is why he does not listen to them.
 
To that, all anyone need to say is  - "no way", and he has nothing but conjecture to argue his unsubstantiated and impossible to prove, wild opinions.


For 2Vermont.....

Through it all, the only thing we really know with absolute certainty of faith, is  that V2 and the Novus Ordo are full of diabolical error, and that because the NO is full of error, it is not infallible, it is not binding and it is to be avoided or fought against. Who ever does not know this will certainly discover it with the grace of God, if they sincerely seek the truth.

This is what we know, this is *all* we actually know - everything else regarding the V2 UOM is 100% pure speculation - period, but people, particularly Cekadians,  actually believe what he preaches is a teaching of the Church - some even believe it doctrine - even though much of it certainly ridiculous, most of it is not Catholic at all.

Quote from: clarkaim

Aren't you not seeing that which is the whole point?  Is he not saying that because A. the UOM is infallible and must be accepted, and B.  VII is clearly in error, ergo C. it is NOT the UOM (by their fruits you shall KNOW them)  corollary, these clowns are usurpers.  

Correct me if I understand the argument incorrectly.  Surely creates a mystery,  but not as difficult as reconciling a clearly heretical council and a bunch of goofs into something it's not, Catholic.  

You have it correct, he defines the UOM as infallible when in council with the pope, then he says V2, which was comprised of the UOM as he defines it, was not the UOM at all. He presumably does this to attempt to defend the doctrine of infallibility? Or is it to attempt to prove the UOM and pope are fakes, or they all or some percentage of them lost their offices sometime prior to 1962? - which is why he does not listen to them.
 
To that, all anyone need to say is  - "no way", and he has nothing but conjecture to argue his unsubstantiated and impossible to prove, wild opinions.


For 2Vermont.....

Through it all, the only thing we really know with absolute certainty of faith, is  that V2 and the Novus Ordo are full of diabolical error, and that because the NO is full of error, it is not infallible, it is not binding and it is to be avoided or fought against. Who ever does not know this will certainly discover it with the grace of God, if they sincerely seek the truth.

This is what we know, this is *all* we actually know - everything else regarding the V2 UOM is 100% pure speculation - period, but people, particularly Cekadians,  actually believe what he preaches is a teaching of the Church - some even believe it doctrine - even though much of it certainly ridiculous, most of it is not Catholic at all.

No, it is not speculation to you because you have insisted since the beginning of this thread that V2 represented the UOM.  According to you then the UOM has brought about diabolical error.  

Yes, I said the UOM, as defined by Fr. Cekada, were participants at V2, because they were. It is an historical fact. Being an historical fact it is not speculation by any stretch of the imagination, rather, it is fact.

This is where you are factually wrong.  It is an historical fact that people who claimed to have the authority of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium were at Vatican 2, not that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was, in truth, present.

The Universal Ordinary Magisterium, as defined by Fr. Cekada (as well as the Church) requires the confirmation of the pope.  Fr. Cekada formally rejects the claim of Montini to the papacy, thus, he denies that Vatican 2 was governed under the Universal Ordinary (or Extraordinary) Magisterium.

His point is not that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium defected; rather, the defection is the best evidence that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was not at the Council.  Had there been a pope at the Council, the docuмents would have been very different.  In fact, they would have pronounced Catholic doctrine even if they had not formally declared any dogma.

Quote from: Stubborn

Yes, I said the UOM, as defined by Fr. Cekada, were participants at V2, because they were. It is an historical fact. Being an historical fact it is not speculation by any stretch of the imagination, rather, it is fact.

This is where you are factually wrong.  It is an historical fact that people who claimed to have the authority of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium were at Vatican 2, not that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was, in truth, present.

The Universal Ordinary Magisterium, as defined by Fr. Cekada (as well as the Church) requires the confirmation of the pope.  Fr. Cekada formally rejects the claim of Montini to the papacy, thus, he denies that Vatican 2 was governed under the Universal Ordinary (or Extraordinary) Magisterium.

His point is not that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium defected; rather, the defection is the best evidence that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was not at the Council.  Had there been a pope at the Council, the docuмents would have been very different.  In fact, they would have pronounced Catholic doctrine even if they had not formally declared any dogma.

All speculation.

It is an historical fact that the authentic UOM were at V2. How can we say this with absolute certainty?
Because no one has ever proven, nor will anyone ever prove that the UOM were not the authentic, legitimate, legal and official  UOM no matter WHAT Fr. Cekada chooses to speculate, believe and preach - in that order.

His point that the UOM defected before V2 is pure speculation. 100% pure speculation and nothing more. That speculation's value is worth nothing, is not Catholic and is certainly worth much less than my telling you an unadulterated historical fact and where your faith belongs - that no matter what the popes and UOM said or did, no matter what they will ever say or do, the doctrine of infallibility will remain true. Put your faith in that, not the speculative preachings of the Fr. Cekadas of the world.

But see, you allowed yourself to be trapped in the whole Cekadian speculative faith trap. You place your faith in speculation, which is a very, very dangerous place for it, and you do so at the cost of placing your faith and trusting in the true faith of the doctrine of infallibility.

Put your faith in and trust that the doctrine will never fail no matter what. That doctrine is what is certain. The rest is speculation which leads to more speculation which ultimately leads to more speculation - then before you know it, it leads you into a faith that is not Catholic.  

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.

Why do you refuse to assent to the V2 teaching but not the pre-V2 teaching?  Why are you confident that you understand the pre-V2 teaching enough to assent to it?  But you then perceive contradictions but rather than refuse assent to both pre-V2 and V2 teaching you only refuse V2 teaching.  That seems to indicate something more than a doubt or a fear of being mistaken.

Quote from: Stubborn

Yes, I said the UOM, as defined by Fr. Cekada, were participants at V2, because they were. It is an historical fact. Being an historical fact it is not speculation by any stretch of the imagination, rather, it is fact.

This is where you are factually wrong.  It is an historical fact that people who claimed to have the authority of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium were at Vatican 2, not that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was, in truth, present.

The Universal Ordinary Magisterium, as defined by Fr. Cekada (as well as the Church) requires the confirmation of the pope.  Fr. Cekada formally rejects the claim of Montini to the papacy, thus, he denies that Vatican 2 was governed under the Universal Ordinary (or Extraordinary) Magisterium.

His point is not that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium defected; rather, the defection is the best evidence that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was not at the Council.  Had there been a pope at the Council, the docuмents would have been very different.  In fact, they would have pronounced Catholic doctrine even if they had not formally declared any dogma.

Stubborn believes the UOM can give us diabolical error.  'Nuff said.