Wow, we have a high number of lay popes in this thread. It would appear many people feel strongly about this issue, for various personal reasons. I clicked on Yeti's link -- the only contribution from an actual priest in this thread -- to see what he had to say about the issue. He made many good points, and I found his arguments convincing. And I'm not normally a fan of Fr. Cekada.
Thanks, Mr. Lay Pope denoucing lay popes.
Yes, you're no fan of Father Cekada ... except when he serves your agenda. Now that you've touted his bogus claims to having some kind of authority, you do know that Father Cekada would hold your R&R position to be objectively heretical and your attendance at
una cuм Masses to be objectively grave sin. But, you, as "lay pope", have decided to ignore those teachings of this individual who's "far more qualified" than you are to discern such things.
Father Cekada refers to "our people". No, Father Cekada, you have no "people". No Trad cleric has any authority or jurisdiction over anyone. Your opinion is worth no more than anyone else's.
For all Father Cekada touts the "authority" of pre-V2 theologians, these same theologians nearly universally have endorsed the teaching of Vatican II as Catholic and the New Mass as Catholic ... with only a SINGLE exception that I know of (then-Father Guerard des Laurier). But Cekada claims that the theological consensus is definitive and for all intents and purposes infallible ... while ignoring it. Of course, these "pre-Vatican II" theologians were authoritative and definitive 2 days before Vatican II and then somehow all defected "en masse" 2 days after, where suddenly all their highly touted degrees and qualifications meant nothing.
It's all utter hypocrisy. Since Vatican II, we're all "lay popes" ... except of course that no one pretends they have any right or authority to impose their opinions on the consciences of others ... well, except, most notably, people like the SSPV who refuse Sacraments to the faithful based on their own theological opinions. They're hands down the most notorious for imposing themselves on the consciences of others and using the Sacraments as weapons for this enforcement.
Not to mention the obvious fact that the Trad clergy disagree among themselves on just about every issue, so which Trad cleric suddenly has this authority to act as a "clerical pope" (without a lick of jurisdiction)?
We have only one Magisterial teaching regarding the subject, from Pius XI in
Casti Conubii (but, hey, R&R, what does it matter, since it wasn't an infallible docuмent, so you're free to disregard, eh). I love the temerity of R&R complaining about lay popes when they claim that any papal teaching that doesn't meet the notes of infallibility can be ignored and disregarded. In any case, Pius XI taught that it's sinful to subordinate the primary ends of marriage to the secondary, and if seeking the secondary ends while deliberately attempting to exclude the primary doesn't constitue such a subordination, then there's no such thing. Pius XII, on the other hand, was teaching nothing. He did not address the entire Church but was merely speculating in front of a group of midwives. You can see in his language that he was merely thinking out loud and was not teaching or imposing anything at all on the Church.
But I love it here when R&R and the dogmatic SVs hold hands and sing kumbaya, when ironically the former hold that anything short of solemn papal teaching can be disregarded and the latter absurdly claiming (overreacting to the former) that a Pope is teaching solemnly every time he passes wind through his lips. But suddenly you are a "fan of Father Cekada" when the two groups couldn't possibly be more polar opposities in terms of your principles.
So if you're entitled to reject the teaching of an ecuмenical Council backed by nearly all the bishops of the world, and endorsed by the man you claim is the Pope, Mr. Lay Pope, then I'm entitled to question an obvious speculation of a Pope before a group of midwives. It's shocking to me that the utter absurdity of this contradictions doesn't even leave an impression on your mind. You guys exist in a bizarre schizophrenic state where in principle it's permitted for Catholics to question any Magisterial teaching that doesn't have all the notes of infallibility, but then it's not permitted to question the opinions of the some theologians who were clearly all infected with Modernism in the years leading up to Vatican II. That's from the R&R side. On the Cekadist side, did all these theologians that were practically infallible in their consensus in 1957, suddenly lose this mysterious "charism" in 1962, when they all defected "en masse" from the faith? ... since the overwhelming consensus of these theologians endorsed and approved of Vatican II?
We keep seeing these two absurd extremes between R&R who minimize the authority of Papal teaching (except when it suits their agenda) and the dogmatic SV overraction where Pius XII's long-winded speculative speech in front of some midwives might as well have been a solemn dogmatic pronouncement or even an Encyclical addressed to the Universal Church.
So, by your standards, every Trad is playing "lay pope".