Great article/blog by Fr Cekada.  Too bad it probably won't go anywhere at FE.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3461368.0.html

Unfortunately, most sedevacantists go too far in bloating papal authority.  Bergoglio's off-the-cuff comments and interviews would in no way constitute any kind of "authentic teaching".  That said, sedeplenists go too far the other way, claiming that they can be free to blow off Vatican II and the New Mass even though they come from legitimate authority.  V2 definitely would constitute "authentic teaching" at the very least.

Unfortunately, most sedevacantists go too far in bloating papal authority.  Bergoglio's off-the-cuff comments and interviews would in no way constitute any kind of "authentic teaching".  That said, sedeplenists go too far the other way, claiming that they can be free to blow off Vatican II and the New Mass even though they come from legitimate authority.  V2 definitely would constitute "authentic teaching" at the very least.

The off-the-cuff interviews are evidence that Bergoglio isn't a Catholic; they don't need to be "authentic teaching." I agree in that Cekada slants his comments to suit his audience and his goals, like a politician. I don't think he really cares about anything but the politics; for him the Church is a political entity.

I agree too that sedeplentists often dismiss sede theological arguments by various dubious (in my view) arguments. While I have argued against these various arguments, it seem likely that reasonable men will differ on many of these points. Cekada used to hold a view that these various opinions were fair game because we Catholics await a final decision from the Church. He has since abandoned that view (exactly when is in question) and decided to pick fights with just about every trad group imaginable.

If he really believes "if you say Bergoglio is a true pope, then follow him, " Cekada cares nothing for souls. If he doesn't believe this and says it anyway, he's much worse.

Quote from: SJB

I agree too that sedeplentists often dismiss sede theological arguments by various dubious (in my view) arguments. While I have argued against these various arguments, it seem likely that reasonable men will differ on many of these points. Cekada used to hold a view that these various opinions were fair game because we Catholics await a final decision from the Church. He has since abandoned that view (exactly when is in question) and decided to pick fights with just about every trad group imaginable.

If he really believes "if you say Bergoglio is a true pope, then follow him, " Cekada cares nothing for souls. If he doesn't believe this and says it anyway, he's much worse.

I think the point he is trying to make is if "you" believe he is a true pope then the logic (and Catholic teaching) follows that you must obey him when he speaks on faith and morals.  If what he speaks on faith and morals is heresy, then he is a false pope and you are not obligated to obey him.

From the times I have heard him speak I certainly do think he cares for souls.  He just believes that the sedeplenist view contradicts logic.  At least that's my interpretation of his remarks.

I actually know him and I know he is a politician and has little care for souls.

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: SJB

I agree too that sedeplentists often dismiss sede theological arguments by various dubious (in my view) arguments. While I have argued against these various arguments, it seem likely that reasonable men will differ on many of these points. Cekada used to hold a view that these various opinions were fair game because we Catholics await a final decision from the Church. He has since abandoned that view (exactly when is in question) and decided to pick fights with just about every trad group imaginable.

If he really believes "if you say Bergoglio is a true pope, then follow him, " Cekada cares nothing for souls. If he doesn't believe this and says it anyway, he's much worse.

I think the point he is trying to make is if "you" believe he is a true pope then the logic (and Catholic teaching) follows that you must obey him when he speaks on faith and morals.  If what he speaks on faith and morals is heresy, then he is a false pope and you are not obligated to obey him.

From the times I have heard him speak I certainly do think he cares for souls.  He just believes that the sedeplenist view contradicts logic.  At least that's my interpretation of his remarks.

If Fr. Cekada stuck to pointing out that the position of our brother Catholics can be shown to be illogical and inconsistent, then there would be no disagreement.

A Catholic who is illogical but keeps the Faith remains a Catholic.  Heresy must always be direct, it cannot involve multiple steps in logic to reach it.

To say to Catholics who think Francis is Pope to logically apply the principles of the papacy and how Catholics must subject themselves to a true pope, is to tell Catholics to abandon their Faith and defect.

We are right of this, but being right on this does not make us the only Catholics.  Faulty logic does not cause a Catholic to lose his membership in the Church, but becoming a heretic by believing Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and Paul VI will make one lose their membership in the Church.

While we should gently and charitably help our brothers navigate through this maze of theology,  we should never tell them to logically apply pre-Vatican II principles to Francis.  That is the same as telling them to become a heretic and to go to Hell.

Not sure if my I'm brain dead, but I am not following this post.

I see SJB knows Fr Cekada and therefore has made a judgment about his motives.  However, I have listened to recent broadcasts and I have yet to hear him say that all of those in the NO are going to Hell.

Unfortunately, most sedevacantists go too far in bloating papal authority.  Bergoglio's off-the-cuff comments and interviews would in no way constitute any kind of "authentic teaching".  That said, sedeplenists go too far the other way, claiming that they can be free to blow off Vatican II and the New Mass even though they come from legitimate authority.  V2 definitely would constitute "authentic teaching" at the very least.

I am preparing a much longer response in the future, but the gist of the argument is this. The whole pope heretic issue is non important (*gasps for air*), because the problem is that the Vatican II sect does not have the four marks of the Church. Now what I will show in another thread is comparing the Vatican II sect against the traditionalist claim to having the four marks of the Church. Now we know that even during a papal interregnum that the Church preserves its four marks, not even for one second do we lose this. The Vatican II sect is a more liberalized notion of Anglican ecclesiology, as they would call it "unity in diversity." It is rightfully called by the more rigorist ranks of the indulter's a "New religion", nobody disputes this claim that has actually read the heretical words/deeds of the Conciliar Church.

Some folks are willing to dismiss completely the majority opinion of theologians on the heretic-Pope issue, but interestingly enough they readily admit speculative theology on other matters. Now why would this be done? Easy, because without the aid of these other speculative theological matters their position would seem totally illogical. So if you are going to be honest about these issues, then if you easily dismiss everything we throw out there. It would be perfectly within justice for us to dismiss the most important arguments/premises that are needed in order to make the Vatican II sect still a Catholic entity, instead of what the few true Catholics left spread among the world. This is what we call intellectual dishonesty, or mental gymnastics for those of you that like more colloquial terms. This is why the term that some traditionalist use for the Novus Ordo schismatic Church, "mainstream Church" is completely misleading people. Now why is it misleading because it makes people believe that in this schismatic entity there exist two Churches, a true Church and a false Church. The mainstream Church consist of the 99.99% of Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo mass belong to this Church, and the clergy who give those masses. Now we are supposed to somehow believe that the .001% somehow will make up for the lack of unity among the other 99.99% of Novus Ordo Catholics. Its also interesting because the .001% are in all official text considered as schismatics, i.e. outside of this new structure. This is the concept that the Ecclesia Dei calls "schismatic mentality", i.e. if you hold to a SV/SSPX stance even though you might attend an indult mass you are schismatic. Now this gets more lovely, because this makes things perfect for us. That by the official new entity true Catholics are kicked out, ipso facto, and yet this new entity accepts as true particular Churches heretics/schismatics who are able to offer salvation (i.e. get you to heaven). So that true Catholics ipso facto are kicked out as soon as they accept any Catholic theological premises as true, so that objectively there is not one single Catholic left in the Conciliar Church. All the true Catholics have been anathematized out of that Church, and they are easily distinguishable because they still have the substance of the Catholic faith, they resist error internally.

One of the most famous arguments is the whole visibility of the Church, this is the one that most SSPX priest bring out as the "death blow" to the SV'ist thesis. However this argument is actually the strongest attack against the Vatican II sect. The only visible thing in the Vatican II sect is a new religion, not a Catholic one. There is not one shred of evidence (not one iota) to prove that these men (in the higher echelons of the new hierarchy) have the Catholic faith. In one page they tell you one thing and in the next page they tell you heresy. This is the tactic of the modernist heretic, and this was long ago discovered by many other good Holy Popes/Saints in the past. In our most recent time it was St. Pius X of happy memory who said this in the most authorative manner. Now just imagine what the Church would be reduced to if we did not have certainty that people that think in a Hegelian/modern philosophy manner in the external forum through their words and deeds, have to be "given the benefit of the doubt." Actually its not hard to imagine, we are currently seeing the fruits of that "thinking."

You see the whole benefit of the doubt is only given to those who consistently have the Catholic faith, we cannot presume because in one little sermon a priest says something that sounded unorthdox that he is now a condemned anathematized heretic. There are many occasions that in my own manner of speaking without intending to, certain things that I have said if anyone had the theological background could call me out on it. I was not intending to make a complete theological explanation at every single second making every single possible distinction etc... This is perfectly understandable and it would be absurd to believe that you somehow need to recite the whole Athanasian Creed or recite the Creed of the Council of Trent every time that you are wanting to make a comment about the faith, however, what is the reality with respect to the Conciliar claimants/clergy? We have people who throughout their whole lives have been nothing but heretics, and now we are to give them the benefit of the doubt!? The docuмented evidence proves that there is a date/time where you can be certain that a new religion was founded, a religion similar to that of the Freemasonic one, where the focus is on man and not God. Most of all never having once apologized or made an abjuration of error and made a profession of faith! We are still to give them the benefit of the doubt, thinking back on it especially in our most recent "papal conclave" it all comes down to the external forum. Unless I have proven or made a statement to the contrary, we have to presume the external forum, we cannot ever judge the intent of any man. Yet continually everyone continues to put the conversation forward in having to somehow be able to know the "secret thoughts of the heretics" in order for us to be certain of our judgements! So that unless, Bergoglio makes an abjuration of his serious errors it is stupid to have ever thought of the man as a Pope, much less a Catholic.

I remember praying hard that he might be courageous etc... As every Catholic deep inside has a desire for the restoration of the Catholic Church, but the man has never once recanted ANY of his errors. We are yet somehow surprised that he has not changed... God cannot change a man whose will is set on destruction and heresy. It is impossible for the Lord to change the heart of a man who has apostasized from the faith, because he does not have the gift of faith any more. The only way that we can know that he has changed is for the novelties to stop, abjuration of error is made, and a public profession of faith is made on top of that a reversal of the heretical explicit policies of the Conciliar Church, i.e. all joint declarations made with Lutheran's/Protestants/Orthodox confessional Churches should be publicly null and voided. This is how you would be certain that the man is Catholic, but yet we are to presume he is Catholic KNOWING very well that the man neither in deed/word/thoughts has the Catholic faith.

 The standards should MOST OF ALL apply MOST rigorously to the most public man in the world, the pope. In our modern day and age it makes things so easy for us to be able to discern whether the gift of faith still resides in the man claiming to sit in the Chair of St. Peter. It is pathetic to argue that "we have had bad popes" in the past, because NONE of the Church historians many of them canonized Saints and great in their learning, have agreed with such a thesis. Many of them lived much closer to the age where they were writing and had access to some things that we might not have access to right now. No where, in fact its not even mentioned, do they (theologians) ONCE say that it is possible to resist the moral/doctrinal teaching of a Pope. All of them in context are referring to avoiding evil commands from even a Roman Pontiff, but yet consistently everyone like a bunch of blind sheep continue to quote them like lemmings falling of a cliff in the blindness of their heart. No one has the authority to depose a Pope, and no one has the authority to resist a True Pontiff. Unless you can absolutely accept this reality, you will continue with the masochistic tendencies of going to the New Mass, and picking + choosing what comes from the Church. It is only possible to resist non-doctrinal related deeds from authority. This is true even for your parents or any clergy, no one can ask you to commit sin. Please prove to me what the modern claimants have done with respect to commanding evil. I am asking for real tangible evidence, the more the better. Something like this, "Fr. Chardin go and abuse those boys", "Come blondie into my room", "Go kill this man", "Steal from that president", "Lets have some group love sessions", "Let me have your wife", "Lets go to war with this nation", "Sacrifice all your black cats on x date", "Go naked from now on". Unless he is directly commanding you things like this, then you can certainly resist him and you will never hear a peep from any SV'ist. I wish it was that simple, but the reality is that you are resisting his teachings on FAITH and MORALS. This is dangerous, extremely dangerous at some point it will lead to extremes either going back to the Conciliar Church or Home Alonism.  

To say to Catholics who think Francis is Pope to logically apply the principles of the papacy and how Catholics must subject themselves to a true pope, is to tell Catholics to abandon their Faith and defect.

We are right of this, but being right on this does not make us the only Catholics.  Faulty logic does not cause a Catholic to lose his membership in the Church, but becoming a heretic by believing Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and Paul VI will make one lose their membership in the Church.

While we should gently and charitably help our brothers navigate through this maze of theology,  we should never tell them to logically apply pre-Vatican II principles to Francis.  That is the same as telling them to become a heretic and to go to Hell.

I agree, but we could definitely stress the dangerous position that one faces. As I have always pointed out the important thing is in order to be Catholic you have to either reject these heretics/heresies which are too numerous to name OR resist within the intellect their errors. The latter opinion is dangerous too because it leads to schizophrenic logic that can lead you back to Conciliarism (in this case knowing better, probably would mean that you would be a member of the Vatican II sect) or into a radical schismatic position where the only true Catholics are yourself and a few other individuals, "everyone else are hell bound heretics."

The only way to lead them to the faith is with pre-Vatican II principles the problem is not the doctrine or the application of the doctrine, but the mind that refuses to accept the bitter truth. They would rather feel attached to a man in white robes, then the Catholic faith. There are many especially within the conservative camp Michael Voris and company type. That actually apply pre-Vatican II principles to the modern Conciliar papacies, now that is the dangerous thing is that they are being consistent and logical (not good in this case). I think they are much closer to becoming Sedevacantist then the SSPX type of folks... The SSPX wants you to have your cake and eat it too, the danger is if someone starts thinking logically they will go back to Conciliarism. Which of course is not a good thing, and that is the evil that you are trying to prevent in the first place. So teaching Catholics about pre-Vatican II principles is in itself a good and commendable thing. Unless you are willing to say that you won't give pearls to swine, but then I think it would be stretching your position  :sad:.