Author Topic: Fr. Cekadas version of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (Read 12748 times)

TKGS · « **Reply #75 on:** October 16, 2015, 04:31:44 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

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

Name one.

The docuмent Nostra aetate, paragraph 3: "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God..."

The Catholic Church's doctrine is that the one God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If one denies the Son, he denies the Father. This is also scriptural.

While the Vatican 2 docuмent does not specifically attach an anathema to any who does not accept this teaching, it is what it teaches.

Of course, I expect that you will deny that this is actually a "teaching". Even John Lane agrees with you there. Based on what the bishops and the pope of the Conciliar church teach commonly throughout the world and in their catechism, this is clearly intended to be what Vatican 2 is teaching.

2Vermont · « **Reply #76 on:** October 16, 2015, 04:32:32 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

According to you, it is historical fact that the AUTHENTIC UOM was at V2. Then act like it was: attend the NO and submit to the AUTHENTIC UOM's V2 teachings.

2Vermont · « **Reply #77 on:** October 16, 2015, 04:33:48 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

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

Name one.

The docuмent Nostra aetate, paragraph 3: "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God..."

The Catholic Church's doctrine is that the one God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If one denies the Son, he denies the Father. This is also scriptural.

While the Vatican 2 docuмent does not specifically attach an anathema to any who does not accept this teaching, it is what it teaches.

Of course, I expect that you will deny that this is actually a "teaching". Even John Lane agrees with you there. Based on what the bishops and the pope of the Conciliar church teach commonly throughout the world and in their catechism, this is clearly intended to be what Vatican 2 is teaching.

It's nice that you replied to Ladislaus' question, but he still has several in this thread to answer.

I will add one though that I just used recently elsewhere:

"This is why the first and greatest commandment is love of God and of neighbor." - Gaudium et specs, 24

ubipetrus · « **Reply #78 on:** October 16, 2015, 08:17:18 PM »

One other thing to take into account is that while the Catholic UOM is infallible, the Novus Ordo pseudo "UOM" is not infallible and never made any claims of being infallible. This was essentially Michael Davies' "out" regarding the contradiction between the old and the new. Since under the "new," only the occasional rare exercise of an "extraordinary magisterium" is infallible, all bets are off for everything else they do. This is of course also consistent with Vatican II's utter lack of anathemas.

Catholictrue · « **Reply #79 on:** October 16, 2015, 09:24:26 PM »

TKGS said:
I am certain Vatican 2 teaches heresy.

Ladislaus said:

Name one.

There are numerous heresies in Vatican II. To name just one: the Church declares that whoever dissents from the Papacy or another dogma is ALIEN to the Body of Christ and separated from the Lord - i.e. the person is not in the Lord (Council of Florence; Leo XIII; etc.).

Vatican II teaches the opposite in the Decree on Ecuмenism: that baptized people who DISSENT from Catholic teaching, including on the Papacy or in matters of Church structure, etc. are in the Body of Christ and in the Lord. That is heresy. Vatican II even uses the word 'dissensions', indicating that it's referring specifically to people who DISSENT from Catholic teaching on the Papacy or something else. Even though such baptized people dissent from Catholic teaching on the Papacy or something else, they are, nevertheless, in the Body of Christ and in the Lord, according to Vatican II (simply because they were baptized). That is contrary to Catholic dogma. It is heresy. This video carefully examines Vatican II's text and shows that it is heretical:

Vatican II's Protestant Heresy

LucasL · « **Reply #80 on:** October 16, 2015, 09:44:39 PM »

I have some very naive thoughts on this issue. This is not opinions, just things that cross my mind. Bear in mind I don't believe in sedevacantism but I don't say anything against who says the Chair of Peter is vacante. I have no problems as long as they don't call me schismatic.

picture proves that the B. XVI is a heretic.
The Catholic Church can't teach heresy (Benedict XVI is there because VII allowed). In whch we conclude....?

- freemansons wrote the docuмents of VII ? OR
- Cardinalds entered the rooms as Catholics and while in there the lost their faith and became Antichrists (inc. the Pope).

Cantarella · « **Reply #81 on:** October 16, 2015, 10:25:04 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

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

Name one.

The docuмent Nostra aetate, paragraph 3: "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God..."

The Catholic Church's doctrine is that the one God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If one denies the Son, he denies the Father. This is also scriptural.

While the Vatican 2 docuмent does not specifically attach an anathema to any who does not accept this teaching, it is what it teaches.

Of course, I expect that you will deny that this is actually a "teaching". Even John Lane agrees with you there. Based on what the bishops and the pope of the Conciliar church teach commonly throughout the world and in their catechism, this is clearly intended to be what Vatican 2 is teaching.

How very interesting that it was precisely Cardinal Richard Cushing (having silenced Fr. Feeney and the Saint Benedict Center) who played a vital role in drafting Nostra aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge.

"His emotional comments during debates over the drafts were echoed in the final version":

Quote

1. We must cast the Declaration on the Jews in a much more positive form, one not so timid, but much more loving ... For the sake of our common heritage we, the children of Abraham according to the spirit, must foster a special reverence and love for the children of Abraham according to the flesh. As children of Adam, they are our kin, as children of Abraham they are Christ's blood relatives.

2. So far as the guilt of Jews in the death of our Saviour is concerned, the rejection of the Messiah by His own, is according to Scripture, a mystery—a mystery given us for our instruction, not for our self-exaltation ... We cannot sit in judgement on the onetime leaders of Israel—God alone is their judge. Much less can we burden later generations of Jews with any burden of guilt for the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, for the death of the Saviour of the world, except that universal guilt in which we all have a part ... In clear and unmistakable language, we must deny, therefore, that the Jews are guilty of our Saviour's death. We must condemn especially those who seek to justify, as Christian deeds, discrimination, hatred and even persecution of Jews ...

3. I ask myself, Venerable Brothers, whether we should not humbly acknowledge before the whole world that, toward their Jєωιѕн brethren, Christians have all too often not shown themselves as true Christians, as faithful followers of Christ. How many [Jews] have suffered in our own time? How many died because Christians were indifferent and kept silent? ... If in recent years, not many Christian voices were raised against those injustices, at least let ours now be heard in humility.

He was deeply committed to implementing the Council's reforms and promoting renewal in the Church. In an unprecedented gesture of ecuмenism, he even encouraged Catholics to attend Billy Graham's crusades"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cushing

Stubborn · « **Reply #82 on:** October 17, 2015, 07:06:25 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

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? ...........

According to you, it is historical fact that the AUTHENTIC UOM was at V2. Then act like it was: attend the NO and submit to the AUTHENTIC UOM's V2 teachings.

You are stuck firmly in the Cekadian muck. I call it muck because if you've ever been stuck in muck (there are a lot of muck farms by me), you can sink in it up to the roof - and getting unstuck even if only stuck a little, takes an amazing amount of time and effort. I call it "Cekadian muck" because it is through Fr. Cekada's teachings that the sheeple who follow him into the muck get stuck.

Any way, I get the various different speculations mixed up. Someone said the UOM defected, maybe that was +Sanborn who said that - and you say Fr. Cekada teaches it was not the UOM at all, which is even more wild than a defected UOM in my opinion - I could be wrong about that, perhaps the defected UOM is actually the more wild speculation. Either way, they are both speculations.

I guess I want to know who were the people who were in the Council if they were not the UOM? I don't expect an answer from you on this btw, because I am certain you have no answer or your answer will only be more speculations - that's how it works with speculations.

To reply to your last sentence where you want me to join the Novus Ordo.

I would first like you to understand that what you told me to do is akin to cursing me into losing the faith. Catholics do not say things like that to other Catholics, Catholics do not wish that on anyone, fyi. I understand you are merely trying to make a point so no harm taken, yet you believe so strongly in your speculation that you stoop to ignoring what is absolutely necessary (keeping the faith) which you certainly understand, in favor of what is opinion, aka the UOM did it so I must follow them, even when that means to follow them right into the pit.

We know that the Church held a Council and per de fide teaching, the Holy Ghost was supposed to protect whatever came out of that Council from the possibility of error. But instead, during and more especially after the Council, error flowed like water flows down Niagara Falls. So what happened?

The truth of the matter is - we do not know what happened with the UOM or with V2. That is the truth. That is simply being honest. It is my opinion that God does not want us to know with certainty how V2 was able to do what it did - otherwise we would all know exactly what happened. But we don't.

Perhaps we will never know until the next world exactly what happened, but whatever happened, our responsibility is to persevere in the faith, not try to understand the abundant theological questions and possibilities of what happened, then not fully understanding, make guesses about what happened and pass off those guesses as factual or Church teachings.

In society, people who claim to know something they really do not and could not know, are either wrong or mistaken, but people who are persistent and teach the same mistake for years on end, are appropriately known as liars.

No, I do not know with absolute certainty what happened at V2 and neither do you, neither does Fr. Cekada or +Sanborn, or +Kelly, or +Fellay or etc. but we do know that we cannot partake of the NO because it is a danger to our faith.

Our concern lies in striving to persevere in and practice the faith as was handed down to us for +2000 years no matter what else happens, that is where our responsibility lies, if we want to save our souls.

Quote from: Fr. Wathen

How do we know what things the popes can and cannot legitimately do? We do not have to know. The only thing we have to know is our obligations to Christ as Catholics, all of which have been laid down for us for many centuries, all of which make up the traditional Catholic religion, practically all of which can be found in the catechism.

2Vermont · « **Reply #83 on:** October 17, 2015, 07:47:05 AM »

Stubborn said,

I would first like you to understand that what you told me to do is akin to cursing me into losing the faith. Catholics do not say things like that to other Catholics, Catholics do not wish that on anyone, fyi. I understand you are merely trying to make a point so no harm taken, yet you believe so strongly in your speculation that you stoop to ignoring what is absolutely necessary (keeping the faith) which you certainly understand, in favor of what is opinion, aka the UOM did it so I must follow them, even when that means to follow them right into the pit.

We know that the Church held a Council and per de fide teaching, the Holy Ghost was supposed to protect whatever came out of that Council from the possibility of error. But instead, during and more especially after the Council, error flowed like water flows down Niagara Falls. So what happened?

The truth of the matter is - we do not know what happened with the UOM or with V2. That is the truth. That is simply being honest. It is my opinion that God does not want us to know with certainty how V2 was able to do what it did - otherwise we would all know exactly what happened. But we don't.

Again, a non-answer. You are stating that the UOM gave us error and that the Holy Ghost did not do its job. It doesn't matter whether you can come up with an explanation for your comment. What you said is heretical. The UOM can NOT give us error. No Catholic should state such a thing. Catholic teaching is that it is not possible just as Catholic teaching is that it is not possible for an ecuмenical council to give us error.

For you to assert such a heretical stance and then tell me I am "stooping" to ignore what is absolutely necessary to keep the faith in order to make YOUR point against Fr Cekada and other sedevacantists is the height of hypocrisy.
You sit in judgment of Fr Cekada's (and other sedevacantist) explanation...meanwhile you judge, what you consider, the UOM in error.

2Vermont · « **Reply #84 on:** October 17, 2015, 08:21:51 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

I guess I want to know who were the people who were in the Council if they were not the UOM?

Wait, so now you WANT me to speculate? :scratchchin:

I actually don't know how to answer that question other than I know, based on Catholic teaching, that the UOM can not give us error and that an ecuмenical council can not give us error. Vatican II gave us error...lots of it. Therefore, logic tells me that Vatican II could not be authentic UOM. It also can not be an authentic ecuмenical council. My logic tells me that means that at the very least, the sitting pope who promulgated all such errors could not be an authentic pope.

Stubborn · « **Reply #85 on:** October 17, 2015, 09:31:00 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Stubborn said,

I would first like you to understand that what you told me to do is akin to cursing me into losing the faith. Catholics do not say things like that to other Catholics, Catholics do not wish that on anyone, fyi. I understand you are merely trying to make a point so no harm taken, yet you believe so strongly in your speculation that you stoop to ignoring what is absolutely necessary (keeping the faith) which you certainly understand, in favor of what is opinion, aka the UOM did it so I must follow them, even when that means to follow them right into the pit.

We know that the Church held a Council and per de fide teaching, the Holy Ghost was supposed to protect whatever came out of that Council from the possibility of error. But instead, during and more especially after the Council, error flowed like water flows down Niagara Falls. So what happened?

The truth of the matter is - we do not know what happened with the UOM or with V2. That is the truth. That is simply being honest. It is my opinion that God does not want us to know with certainty how V2 was able to do what it did - otherwise we would all know exactly what happened. But we don't.

Again, a non-answer. You are stating that the UOM gave us error and that the Holy Ghost did not do its job. It doesn't matter whether you can come up with an explanation for your comment. What you said is heretical. The UOM can NOT give us error. No Catholic should state such a thing. Catholic teaching is that it is not possible just as Catholic teaching is that it is not possible for an ecuмenical council to give us error.

For you to assert such a heretical stance and then tell me I am "stooping" to ignore what is absolutely necessary to keep the faith in order to make YOUR point against Fr Cekada and other sedevacantists is the height of hypocrisy.
You sit in judgment of Fr Cekada's (and other sedevacantist) explanation...meanwhile you judge, what you consider, the UOM in error.

This is how it is when you are stuck in the muck - it's a terrible thing. I am not wholly concerned with "the pope problem", rather, I concentrate on keeping the faith I know is true and avoiding the false faith of the NO.

I did not say that the UOM gave us error, I specifically said I do not know what happened. I also said it does not matter what happened, our job is to persevere in the faith, not speculate about what happened, then promote speculations as fact.

If Fr. Cekada were honest, he would admit he does not know what happened, then make it clear that he has personal opinions about what happened, and leave it at that. If he chose to elaborate on his opinions, he should make sure he repeatedly clarifies they are ONLY his opinions, lest he bring scandal to his sheep who take what he says as Gospel.

Stubborn · « **Reply #86 on:** October 17, 2015, 09:45:13 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Stubborn

I guess I want to know who were the people who were in the Council if they were not the UOM?

Wait, so now you WANT me to speculate? :scratchchin:

I actually don't know how to answer that question other than I know, based on Catholic teaching, that the UOM can not give us error and that an ecuмenical council can not give us error. Vatican II gave us error...lots of it. Therefore, logic tells me that Vatican II could not be authentic UOM. It also can not be an authentic ecuмenical council. My logic tells me that means that at the very least, the sitting pope who promulgated all such errors could not be an authentic pope.

I could make a number of speculations about V2 that are more inline with the Catholic faith than the speculations of Fr. Cekada, but to what end?

+ABL was there in the Council no? He seemed to think it was purposely fallible - what does he know?

How about this for a wild speculation.........It can even be argued that V2 was not infallible on account of +ABL alone. If per Fr. Cekada's definition of the UOM, only one bishop did not go along with all the others, then we can say the NO is not a Universal teaching........it's universal minus one.

So since it was not universal, that is all the proof that anyone needs to know it did not meet the criteria on infallibility. The crazy guesses can go on and on..

SVincentL · « **Reply #87 on:** October 17, 2015, 09:56:55 AM »

"I actually don't know how to answer that question other than I know, based on Catholic teaching, that the UOM can not give us error and that an ecuмenical council can not give us error. Vatican II gave us error...lots of it. Therefore, logic tells me that Vatican II could not be authentic UOM. It also can not be an authentic ecuмenical council. My logic tells me that means that at the very least, the sitting pope who promulgated all such errors could not be an authentic pope." (2Vermont)

I am a huge fan of simplicity, especially when talking about absolute truths. I have been a sedevacantist for some 30 years now and have had the privilege of sitting at the feet of such eminent sedevacantists as Tom Costello and Hutton Gibson. As well, I have participated in these online forums for many years, most recently as an observer, as I confess I tire from all of the pontificating. One of the problems arising from the online discussions is that everyone is published and everyone is a theologian and I have certainly been guilty of this myself. I do not want to labor on that issue so I will get to my point.

The above quote, recently submitted by 2Vermont has to be one of the most brilliant posts in recent memory. I have seen it before of course, but in the midst of all that is going on recently on these online forums I almost overwhelmed by the simplicity of the statement which really answers the questions being argued ad nauseum. In other words this is a Catholic man with a true sense of what is Catholic. He is saying, if I may tell you how I read it, that I may not be able to answer the question, but what I know is Vatican II taught error (and it did) and it can't do that so logically it cannot be the UOM. Bravo! This is simply a defense of his faith. If the True Church can be said to teach error from the UOM then all has become irrelevant. You would be nothing more then another protestant cult. Everything becomes speculative if we argue that Councils and Popes can teach error and sadly you don't know when that is. Sedevacantism is not a solution to this crisis, it is a reality. I could go on but I simply wanted to post a response because I was struck by the beauty of 2Vermonts answer. Keep the faith my good man.

2Vermont · « **Reply #88 on:** October 17, 2015, 10:33:21 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont
Stubborn said,

I would first like you to understand that what you told me to do is akin to cursing me into losing the faith. Catholics do not say things like that to other Catholics, Catholics do not wish that on anyone, fyi. I understand you are merely trying to make a point so no harm taken, yet you believe so strongly in your speculation that you stoop to ignoring what is absolutely necessary (keeping the faith) which you certainly understand, in favor of what is opinion, aka the UOM did it so I must follow them, even when that means to follow them right into the pit.

We know that the Church held a Council and per de fide teaching, the Holy Ghost was supposed to protect whatever came out of that Council from the possibility of error. But instead, during and more especially after the Council, error flowed like water flows down Niagara Falls. So what happened?

The truth of the matter is - we do not know what happened with the UOM or with V2. That is the truth. That is simply being honest. It is my opinion that God does not want us to know with certainty how V2 was able to do what it did - otherwise we would all know exactly what happened. But we don't.

Again, a non-answer. You are stating that the UOM gave us error and that the Holy Ghost did not do its job. It doesn't matter whether you can come up with an explanation for your comment. What you said is heretical. The UOM can NOT give us error. No Catholic should state such a thing. Catholic teaching is that it is not possible just as Catholic teaching is that it is not possible for an ecuмenical council to give us error.

For you to assert such a heretical stance and then tell me I am "stooping" to ignore what is absolutely necessary to keep the faith in order to make YOUR point against Fr Cekada and other sedevacantists is the height of hypocrisy.
You sit in judgment of Fr Cekada's (and other sedevacantist) explanation...meanwhile you judge, what you consider, the UOM in error.

This is how it is when you are stuck in the muck - it's a terrible thing. I am not wholly concerned with "the pope problem", rather, I concentrate on keeping the faith I know is true and avoiding the false faith of the NO.

I did not say that the UOM gave us error, I specifically said I do not know what happened. I also said it does not matter what happened, our job is to persevere in the faith, not speculate about what happened, then promote speculations as fact.

If Fr. Cekada were honest, he would admit he does not know what happened, then make it clear that he has personal opinions about what happened, and leave it at that. If he chose to elaborate on his opinions, he should make sure he repeatedly clarifies they are ONLY his opinions, lest he bring scandal to his sheep who take what he says as Gospel.

If YOU were honest you would admit that there was error. You speak from two sides of your mouth. One minute you say to avoid all things NO and V2 despite the fact that you believe that the infallible UOM gave it to us and the next you say you don't know that there was error. :rolleyes:

You're a very confused man ... at best.

Stubborn · « **Reply #89 on:** October 17, 2015, 11:57:04 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: 2Vermont
Stubborn said,

I would first like you to understand that what you told me to do is akin to cursing me into losing the faith. Catholics do not say things like that to other Catholics, Catholics do not wish that on anyone, fyi. I understand you are merely trying to make a point so no harm taken, yet you believe so strongly in your speculation that you stoop to ignoring what is absolutely necessary (keeping the faith) which you certainly understand, in favor of what is opinion, aka the UOM did it so I must follow them, even when that means to follow them right into the pit.

We know that the Church held a Council and per de fide teaching, the Holy Ghost was supposed to protect whatever came out of that Council from the possibility of error. But instead, during and more especially after the Council, error flowed like water flows down Niagara Falls. So what happened?

The truth of the matter is - we do not know what happened with the UOM or with V2. That is the truth. That is simply being honest. It is my opinion that God does not want us to know with certainty how V2 was able to do what it did - otherwise we would all know exactly what happened. But we don't.

Again, a non-answer. You are stating that the UOM gave us error and that the Holy Ghost did not do its job. It doesn't matter whether you can come up with an explanation for your comment. What you said is heretical. The UOM can NOT give us error. No Catholic should state such a thing. Catholic teaching is that it is not possible just as Catholic teaching is that it is not possible for an ecuмenical council to give us error.

For you to assert such a heretical stance and then tell me I am "stooping" to ignore what is absolutely necessary to keep the faith in order to make YOUR point against Fr Cekada and other sedevacantists is the height of hypocrisy.
You sit in judgment of Fr Cekada's (and other sedevacantist) explanation...meanwhile you judge, what you consider, the UOM in error.

This is how it is when you are stuck in the muck - it's a terrible thing. I am not wholly concerned with "the pope problem", rather, I concentrate on keeping the faith I know is true and avoiding the false faith of the NO.

I did not say that the UOM gave us error, I specifically said I do not know what happened. I also said it does not matter what happened, our job is to persevere in the faith, not speculate about what happened, then promote speculations as fact.

If Fr. Cekada were honest, he would admit he does not know what happened, then make it clear that he has personal opinions about what happened, and leave it at that. If he chose to elaborate on his opinions, he should make sure he repeatedly clarifies they are ONLY his opinions, lest he bring scandal to his sheep who take what he says as Gospel.

If YOU were honest you would admit that there was error. You speak from two sides of your mouth. One minute you say to avoid all things NO and V2 despite the fact that you believe that the infallible UOM gave it to us and the next you say you don't know that there was error. :rolleyes:

You're a very confused man ... at best.

In your zeal to defend Cekadian teachings, you grasp at straws - I said error flowed out of the Council like water from Niagara Falls - look in the quotes above, I made it big enough so I don't think you can miss it this time.

And what I said in bold above still stands.