Author Topic: Fr. Cekadas version of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (Read 12707 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #60 on:** October 16, 2015, 05:05:59 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

I find it curious that this advice you're proposing for Catholics today is equally applicable to the Council in 1962 -- advice which the Council did not follow:

The Council in 1962 did not put its faith and trust in the doctrine of the Church, such that it would not fail.

The speculation in which the Council consequently engaged put the faith in danger during the Council, and led to a false faith, that is, one that is not Catholic.

It was not a question of whether the participants at Vat.II were legitimate. Rather, the problem at Vat.II was that from the start, it was not headed in the right direction, but it was off track and headed into the wilderness of error, from the beginning.

Any ship that embarks on a voyage heading in the wrong direction is going to miss its destination, but it is still a ship.

The road to the truth is the narrow way, and the gate to that way is also narrow, and few there are who pass through.

The road to perdition is wide and easy and many there are who go there.

.

Stubborn · « **Reply #61 on:** October 16, 2015, 05:39:47 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Stubborn says,

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

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.

OK, so you have confirmed that the UOM has given us "diabolical error".

:scratchchin:

Please provide Catholic teaching that supports that the infallible UOM can teach "diabolical error".

No, that is not what I am saying, re-read what I wrote.

While you're at it, please provide a Catholic teaching that the iinfallible UOM defects before or during a Council.

Stubborn · « **Reply #62 on:** October 16, 2015, 05:42:00 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: TKGS
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.

No, that is not what I believe. Re-read what I wrote and use the reading comprehension skills that I know you possess this time.

Stubborn · « **Reply #63 on:** October 16, 2015, 06:48:47 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Stubborn
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.

I find it curious that this advice you're proposing for Catholics today is equally applicable to the Council in 1962 -- advice which the Council did not follow:

The Council in 1962 did not put its faith and trust in the doctrine of the Church, such that it would not fail.

The speculation in which the Council consequently engaged put the faith in danger during the Council, and led to a false faith, that is, one that is not Catholic.

It was not a question of whether the participants at Vat.II were legitimate. Rather, the problem at Vat.II was that from the start, it was not headed in the right direction, but it was off track and headed into the wilderness of error, from the beginning.

Yes, I agree. But per Fr. Cekada, what you just posted is an impossibility.

The problem is the Cekadians striving to justify their SV position, wildly speculate that the UOM as defined by Fr. Cekada, was not the UOM of V2, rather it was some defected version of the UOM. How this was possible is where they face their conundrum, which is explained away with more speculations in order to justify their first speculation that the popes were not popes, or as Fr. Cekada said in his video, "the pope problem".

Whether all the wild speculations about the pope and UOM are in fact true or not, are impossible to prove - and for us, *how* it happened really does not matter anyway. (This fact is something that SVs must cringe at.)

That we know the NO is evil does matter. This matters because since we know it's evil, we know we must remain with the true faith and condemn the new faith in spite of and no matter *how* it happened. That is where our responsibility lies. We do not need to attempt to solve the many theological questions of V2, certainly we should never even attempt to do so with speculations passed off as Church teaching.

TKGS · « **Reply #64 on:** October 16, 2015, 07:37:49 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont
Stubborn believes the UOM can give us diabolical error. 'Nuff said.

No, that is not what I believe. Re-read what I wrote and use the reading comprehension skills that I know you possess this time.

Ok. What I've read is not that he believes the Universal Ordinary Magisterium can give us diabolical error, but that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium isn't infallible. Or, perhaps, he believes that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium simply wasn't present at Vatican 2. Frankly, the problem is that he is simply arguing against Fr. Cekada who is simply restating Catholic doctrine of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium and explaining how this doctrine is a piece of evidence that Vatican 2 cannot be of the Catholic Church.

What Stubborn, Ladislaus, et. al., have given us is a fallible Church. A Church whose teachings cannot be known at any given time because those teachings can conflict, or, as Ladislaus contends, appear to conflict but it is impossible for ordinary Catholics (or indeed, bishops and popes as well) to really know what the teaching of the Church is at any given moment in time.

They choose to believe the teachings clearly taught prior to Vatican 2, but that seems to be merely a matter of preference. They say that they see a conflict but that they are simply unable to make any judgment, but in doing so, they are judging. Though I believe they make the right judgment on many of these doctrinal issues, they have articulated no principle by which someone who makes the opposite judgment are not just as right as they. Ultimately, what we have is a dogma-less and doctrine-less Church.

Of course, there is a possible explanation: the papal claimants defected from the faith and lost the papacy, if, indeed, they ever held the papacy. Thus, there has been no exercise of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium since Vatican 2 as there has been no pope to confirm the teachings we have seen since around 1960.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #65 on:** October 16, 2015, 08:06:01 AM »

Is every single line in anything that falls under the umbrella of the UOM strictly infallible? No. According to Vatican I, the UOM must be proposing something as divinely revealed in order to meet the criteria for infallibility. In addition, the other applicable notes of infallibility must also be present. In other words, the UOM must be teaching, for instance, a matter of faith and morals, as something to be held by all the faithful as divinely revealed.

Now, that's infallibility in the strict sense. And I think that the SVs go too far in extending (what should have been) infallibility to the entire body of Vatican II. So to this extent I agree with R&R.

HOWEVER ...

There's a BROADER notion of infallibility which derives from the indefectibility of the Church herself.

I cite Msgr. Fenton. Msgr. Fenton is speaking about the authority of papal encyclicals. But if the R&Rers would reduce V2 to an act of the UOM (which it is not by the way), then the following would apply to V2 just as it would to a papal encyclical.

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton

In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

R&R posits the defection of the Magisterium on a grand scale, and not a slightly-off statement in some obiter dictum in the V2 docuмents. If an Ecuмenical Council can teach something "radically or completely erroneous", this would be "utterly incompatible" with any sense of the Church's indefectibility.

In my opinion, R&R is implicitly heretical.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #66 on:** October 16, 2015, 08:11:25 AM »

Now, due to this heretical implications of R&Rism, many SVs have gone too far in the other direction, as a reaction against the implicit heresy of R&R, to unduly extending infallibility "in the strict sense" well beyond the boundaries that were defined by Vatican I. Consequently they do a disservice to their own position. They would be better served by instead emphasizing the general indefectibility of the Magisterium. If we are in a position where we MUST reject the Magisterium in order to preserve our faith, then the Magisterium has defected. Period. No need to quibble with the R&Rers about the technicalities of infallibility in the strict sense. That's a losing battle.

Stubborn · « **Reply #67 on:** October 16, 2015, 08:31:29 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: 2Vermont
Stubborn believes the UOM can give us diabolical error. 'Nuff said.

No, that is not what I believe. Re-read what I wrote and use the reading comprehension skills that I know you possess this time.

Ok. What I've read is not that he believes the Universal Ordinary Magisterium can give us diabolical error, but that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium isn't infallible. Or, perhaps, he believes that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium simply wasn't present at Vatican 2. Frankly, the problem is that he is simply arguing against Fr. Cekada who is simply restating Catholic doctrine of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium and explaining how this doctrine is a piece of evidence that Vatican 2 cannot be of the Catholic Church.

What Stubborn, Ladislaus, et. al., have given us is a fallible Church. A Church whose teachings cannot be known at any given time because those teachings can conflict, or, as Ladislaus contends, appear to conflict but it is impossible for ordinary Catholics (or indeed, bishops and popes as well) to really know what the teaching of the Church is at any given moment in time.

They choose to believe the teachings clearly taught prior to Vatican 2, but that seems to be merely a matter of preference. They say that they see a conflict but that they are simply unable to make any judgment, but in doing so, they are judging. Though I believe they make the right judgment on many of these doctrinal issues, they have articulated no principle by which someone who makes the opposite judgment are not just as right as they. Ultimately, what we have is a dogma-less and doctrine-less Church.

Of course, there is a possible explanation: the papal claimants defected from the faith and lost the papacy, if, indeed, they ever held the papacy. Thus, there has been no exercise of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium since Vatican 2 as there has been no pope to confirm the teachings we have seen since around 1960.

Sorry TKGS, but you are missing the point entirely. Try this......

1) Forget about what we do not know for certain, this includes forgetting about *all* things speculative about V2.

2) Concentrate *only* on what we know for certain.

If you are able to do this, you will have everything you need for you and your family to persevere in the true faith.

TKGS · « **Reply #68 on:** October 16, 2015, 09:46:51 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Sorry TKGS, but you are missing the point entirely. Try this......

1) Forget about what we do not know for certain, this includes forgetting about *all* things speculative about V2.

2) Concentrate *only* on what we know for certain.

If you are able to do this, you will have everything you need for you and your family to persevere in the true faith.

I am certain Vatican 2 teaches heresy.

I am certain the Conciliar popes and the bishops, in general, teach heresy.

I am not speculating about what the secular church teaches. They tell us just about every day, and it's not Catholicism.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #69 on:** October 16, 2015, 11:56:20 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

I am certain Vatican 2 teaches heresy.

Name one.

Cantarella · « **Reply #70 on:** October 16, 2015, 12:39:28 PM »

Anyone thinking that an Ecuмenical Council whose decrees have been approved by the Holy Father, (no matter how ambiguous and poorly phrased), is actually heretical, and that a rite (N.O.M), promulgated by the Church, can be intrinsically evil and actually invalid (despite its ugliness and obvious inferiority) cannot do good Catholic theology. Furthermore, if he, following his personal conclusions, has stopped altogether taking the Sacraments dispensed by the Church, (only vehicles of Supernatural Grace and needed for salvation), he has indeed cut himself off from the necessary Grace, so he is on the outside looking in.

Surprisingly, most "Trads" are quick ready to believe that an entire Ecuмenical Council of the Church can be throughout heretical and yet, these same people simply cannot accept the fact that the Magisterium made an objective mistake in a single fallible docuмent, the Letter of the Holy Office of 1949, which precedes Vatican II, that teaches that a soul can be saved outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, contrary to the infallible dogmas taught for centuries before.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #71 on:** October 16, 2015, 02:46:52 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: TKGS
I am certain Vatican 2 teaches heresy.

Name one.

Would you still object if he said I am certain Vatican 2 teaches error?

2Vermont · « **Reply #72 on:** October 16, 2015, 04:04:46 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont
Stubborn says,

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

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.

OK, so you have confirmed that the UOM has given us "diabolical error".

:scratchchin:

Please provide Catholic teaching that supports that the infallible UOM can teach "diabolical error".

No, that is not what I am saying, re-read what I wrote.

While you're at it, please provide a Catholic teaching that the iinfallible UOM defects before or during a Council.

OK, so do me a favor and be REAL CLEAR (as in saying exactly what you believe about the UOM and how it relates to V2...without the Fr Cekada references).

As for the infallible UOM defecting? I don't believe that it can. I also don't believe that it can contradict previous OUM teachings or give us error. Likewise, an ecuмenical council can not teach error in faith and morals.

2Vermont · « **Reply #73 on:** October 16, 2015, 04:08:27 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Stubborn
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.

I find it curious that this advice you're proposing for Catholics today is equally applicable to the Council in 1962 -- advice which the Council did not follow:

The Council in 1962 did not put its faith and trust in the doctrine of the Church, such that it would not fail.

The speculation in which the Council consequently engaged put the faith in danger during the Council, and led to a false faith, that is, one that is not Catholic.

It was not a question of whether the participants at Vat.II were legitimate. Rather, the problem at Vat.II was that from the start, it was not headed in the right direction, but it was off track and headed into the wilderness of error, from the beginning.

Yes, I agree. But per Fr. Cekada, what you just posted is an impossibility.

The problem is the Cekadians striving to justify their SV position, wildly speculate that the UOM as defined by Fr. Cekada, was not the UOM of V2, rather it was some defected version of the UOM. How this was possible is where they face their conundrum, which is explained away with more speculations in order to justify their first speculation that the popes were not popes, or as Fr. Cekada said in his video, "the pope problem".

Whether all the wild speculations about the pope and UOM are in fact true or not, are impossible to prove - and for us, *how* it happened really does not matter anyway. (This fact is something that SVs must cringe at.)

That we know the NO is evil does matter. This matters because since we know it's evil, we know we must remain with the true faith and condemn the new faith in spite of and no matter *how* it happened. That is where our responsibility lies. We do not need to attempt to solve the many theological questions of V2, certainly we should never even attempt to do so with speculations passed off as Church teaching.

Um, no. He is not saying that it was a "defected version of the UOM". He is saying it was NOT the UOM. Those are two very different things, but I think you know that and I also think you know that that is NOT what Fr Cekada is saying.

Perhaps to take another false stab at SVism?

LucasL · « **Reply #74 on:** October 16, 2015, 04:13:59 PM »

My understanding of the video is
If the Magisterium teaches something that is against the teaching of the Church it must be rejected.
Therefore if people who set up Vatican II Magisterium and had teach error, they (including the Pope) are not inside the Church.

That's what I understand so far from this video you posted on page#1