http://www.fathercekada.com/2015/06/10/stuck-in-a-rut-anti-sedevacantism-in-the-age-of-bergoglio/

Stuck in a Rut: Anti-Sedevacantism in the Age of Bergoglio

A video by Rev. Anthony Cekada

THE ELECTION of Jorge Mario Bergoglio by the March 2013 conclave was a turning point in the ongoing dispute among Catholic traditionalists over the question of the pope: Do we “recognize” the post-Vatican II popes as true popes, but “resist” them? (The “R&R” position held by the Society of St. Pius X, Bp. Williamson, The Remnant, Catholic Family News and many others) Or do we treat them as public heretics who are not true popes at all? (The sedevacantist position)

Francis’ outrageous public statements and madcap antics have led more and more traditionalists to embrace sedevacantism, and many more to consider doing the same.

This has caused consternation in the R&R camp, which has felt obliged to produce a good number of anti-sedevacantist critiques over the past two years.

I’ve received many requests to answer these critiques, and this video will serve as my response.

The first rut for R&R is following the wrong theologians — Suarez, Cajetan and John of St. Thomas — who maintained that a heretical pope had to be put on trial before he lost his office. This teaching:

    Was subsequently abandoned by theologians, who adopted the position of St. Robert Bellarmine instead.
    Superseded by Paul IV’s Bull cuм ex Apostolatus Officio.
    Results in absurdity, because in our own days, heretical cardinals would be expected to judge a heretical pope.

The second rut for R&R is that they are still arguing the wrong issue — loss of office by a heretical pope — while sedevacantists now argue that Bergoglio could not have become a true pope in the first place. Here we discuss:

    The teaching of canonists that a public heretic is barred by divine law from becoming a true pope.
    R&R’s confusion of the sin of heresy with the canonical crime of heresy.
    R&R’s creation of the “orthodoxy buddy” rule — you can’t become a heretic unless someone warns you.
    Formal vs. material heresy, and how Pius XII’s 1943 Encyclical Mystici Corporis providentially closed R&R’s last escape route.

We conclude by answering six common R&R “pope by default” objections, and by offering an analysis of the underlying problem which forces Catholics to debate these issues.
This was written by Rev. Anthony Cekada. Posted on Wednesday, June 10, 2015, at 5:20 am. Filed under Francis / Bergoglio, Sedevacantism, Sedevacantism: Objections, SSPX: Errors, Trad Controversies. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback.

This is the same Fr. Cekada whose grasp of Catholic teaching is so tenuous that he found the murder of Terri Schiavo to be morally permissible, right?

That would be the one.

It is worth noting.  Fr. Cekada's new sedevacantist argument("hes got nothing to lost/not validly elected") that he is constantly promoting, actually places him at odds with +Sanborn.  +Sanborn argues that their elections have been valid, but that there is an impediment(heresy).  In my opinion, Fr. Cekada's new argument is the only argument for the weak theory that is sedevacantism.  But, he treats these opinions as dogma by way of the language he uses.  And, that can be offensive to opposing ears(+Sanborn).  I wonder if a break will occur.  

SVism is the ultimate "rut".  Why?  Because it solves nothing.

Catholic sedevacantists do not pretend to have, at this time, the "solution" to the problem.  However, the first step in finding a solution is to identify the problem, which they have done.

Anti-sedevacantists refuse even to admit of a problem or they seem to think that a heretic pope is just an inconvenience.

However, the first step in finding a solution is to identify the problem, which they have done.

That's precisely what I'm disputing.  Only God, in His good time, will provide the solution.

Quote from: Stubborn

And no, a heretic pope(s) are not just an inconvenience, they have been a fact of life for at least the last +50 years and again, there is nothing anyone can do about it - or if I am wrong, what is there that can be done and who can do it?

It's interesting that you admit the Conciliar popes are heretics.  That would not be in line with most R&R (SSPX, etc) positions because most everyone (including Archbishop Lefebvre) understands that a heretic cannot hold an ecclesiastical office.  It used to be that the R&R could argue about formal vs. material heresy, etc.  But Francis has made it very difficult for the R&R folks because he continues to up the ante.

To quote Fr. Wathen: "No one on earth can prove that the Conciliar Popes have not been anti-Catholic conspirators."

This most assuredly is an undeniable fact. I find it difficult to believe that any trad could possibly deny this.

Equally difficult to believe that there are trad who thinks that we are permitted to do anything about it and that preaching that the pope is not the pope is somehow our responsibility or duty or something.

The fact that SVs do not accept, is that it is not within our right to declare him or his acts devoid of validity. It simply isn't. Though we may know for certain that he has committed sins to which the Church has affixed the sentence of ipso facto excommunication, our knowledge of his sins in no way qualifies us to declare the pope deprived of his office, or never to have been elected. This is the fact that separates SVs from non-SVs. This fact is what seemingly has prompted the separation of many trads.    

  It was claimed that the only way to prove formal heresy was for the heretic to come out and say something like "I renounce membership in the Catholic Church" or "I know my position is heretical but I don't care".  With the latest revelation it is getting harder and harder to hold that Francis is not a formal heretic.  But if he is a formal heretic, Catholic doctrine is quite clear that he is incapable of holding an ecclesiastical office.  Lately, instead of saying that the Conciliar pope is not a heretic it has become popular to say that it is necessary for the Church's hierarchy to formally remove the heretic pope before any other member of the Church is permitted to say he is not the pope.  In response I quote James Larrabee:

Quote from: James Larrabee

It is also objected (by De Nantes and others) that some legal process is required, before the Pope actually loses office. This seems to imply the grave error of conciliarism. If a council, or any other authority in the Church below the papacy, can carry out a legal action resulting in the Pope's deposition, no matter how explained, it is clear that they are superior to him. Cajetan, who argued this, tried in vain to reconcile it with the Pope's supremacy (which he also firmly maintained). St. Robert Bellarmine refutes his arguments convincingly, and the arguments of John of St. Thomas, attempting to defend Cajetan, make little sense by comparison. (cf. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=59)

I do understand that there is an official form of an act of heresy and a plain old ordinary form of heresy - both are heresies imo and a person does not need to come out and officially proclaim himself a heretic before I will avoid that person. We know right from wrong and we all know that the pope (or non-pope) is wrong. What we cannot do is anything about it - other than pray for him which far as I know, the SVs refuse to even think about doing.

You can read the article if you want to know why SVs believe themselves justified in concluding that the Conciliar popes are not true popes.

Nishant has an interesting take on it as well.  He says that the universal acceptance of Francis' claim to the papacy is infallible evidence that he is not a formal heretic.  I prefer to take Francis at his word.

Francis is as bad as the rest of the conciliar popes - they are all heretics. There is an argument on another thread about that, but for me, call it what you will, I/we cannot submit to anyone - not even the pope - not even an angel of light - if they preach the wrong gospel and by their example and instructions lead us to offend God. We are under no obligation to submit to the pope when those are the circuмstances.

Well, this is a crisis and those are the circuмstances -  and under these circuмstances we are under no obligation to subject ourselves to his authority whether he is pope or not. It's really that simple.

Quote from: Clemens Maria

It's interesting that you admit the Conciliar popes are heretics.  That would not be in line with most R&R (SSPX, etc) positions because most everyone (including Archbishop Lefebvre) understands that a heretic cannot hold an ecclesiastical office.

Father Chazal in this conference about sedevacantism admits that Francis is a heretic but then goes on to claim that he does not lose office automatically and he talks about how St. Robert Bellarmine believes that a heretic Pope would automatically cease to be Pope but how other theologians thought otherwise.

Well yes, but if you read the article by James Larrabee referenced in my previous post you will see that Fr Chazal's position has already been refuted.

Quote from: Stubborn

And no, a heretic pope(s) are not just an inconvenience, they have been a fact of life for at least the last +50 years and again, there is nothing anyone can do about it - or if I am wrong, what is there that can be done and who can do it?

It's interesting that you admit the Conciliar popes are heretics.  That would not be in line with most R&R (SSPX, etc) positions because most everyone (including Archbishop Lefebvre) understands that a heretic cannot hold an ecclesiastical office.  It used to be that the R&R could argue about formal vs. material heresy, etc.  But Francis has made it very difficult for the R&R folks because he continues to up the ante.  It was claimed that the only way to prove formal heresy was for the heretic to come out and say something like "I renounce membership in the Catholic Church" or "I know my position is heretical but I don't care".  With the latest revelation it is getting harder and harder to hold that Francis is not a formal heretic.  But if he is a formal heretic, Catholic doctrine is quite clear that he is incapable of holding an ecclesiastical office.  Lately, instead of saying that the Conciliar pope is not a heretic it has become popular to say that it is necessary for the Church's hierarchy to formally remove the heretic pope before any other member of the Church is permitted to say he is not the pope.  

It was much the same before John XXIII and JPII were declared "saints." Before, it was, "The Holy Ghost would never allow a true Pope to declare such men as saints." After it happened, the retort was, "Well, canonizations aren't infallible" or "There must have been a flaw in the process," etc. They just keep moving the goal line.