Fr. Cekada Caught Lying Again In His Recent Video, Part II:
None of the Recent Popes were "Public Heretics"
None of the Recent Popes were "Public Heretics"
Before or After Their Election
Fr. Cekada then mislead to his viewers by claiming that this “new argument” was not addressed in TOFP, when, in fact, Chapter 12
was specifically dedicated to refuting it.
In fact, the chapter quotes from Cekada’s own articles directly in which he presents
and defends his “new argument”! Not only does Cekada conceal this fact from his
viewers, but he actually lies to them
by telling them that Chapter 12 deals with the “old argument” of loss of office due to post-election heresy.
In Part I, we saw that what Cekada calls
“public formal heresy” (which, he says, is what prevented the recent Popes from
being validly elected) is, in realty, nothing but occult (secret) heresy,
since, in his own explanation, the formal element of heresy (pertinacity) is not public. There can be no public formal heresy if the form of
heresy remains occult; and remaining occult it does, unless the person publicly
and notoriously rejects the Church as the rule of faith, either by openly leaving
the Church, or by publicly and notoriously denying a dogma of the Faith,
proposed as such by the Church.
After reading our reply in our first installment,
Cekada quickly went on a Catholic message forum and desperately tried to divert
everyone’s attention with more red-herrings. Unfortunately, it didn’t work. One
of the more intelligent posters succinctly and logically evaluated our first
article and concluded that we were correct.
Here is how he did so. He said: Siscoe
and Salza’s argument is that
“for
heresy to be public every essential element of heresy must be public, and
pertinacity is an essential element of heresy, therefore pertinacity must be
public in order for heresy to be public. The argument is valid (the conclusion
logically follows from the premises). It is also sound (the premises are true).
The major premise is certainly true, since public means known by many, and if
only A and B are known, but not C, then the conjunction of A, B, and C is not
known. The minor premise is also true,
and here all the canonists and theologians chime in with support. To be heretic
one must intend to not adhere to the Church as the rule of faith.”
Fr. Cekada’s only response was to bring up
more red-herrings, by claiming, for example, that we misused a certain undefined term (which we actually did
define!). Frustrated with Cekada’s games, one poster wrote:
“Father,
please stop quibbling. They have clarified their position and what they meant
by sin of heresy alone. Answer the substance of [Siscoe/Salza’s] argument or
keep evading actually dealing with the substance of their argument. You have
not given a single intellectual/theological/substantive answer to their
argument because you do not have one. You are at the end of the road.”
Another
wrote:
"Father
Cekada is accusing [Siscoe and Salza] of having 'Talmud arguments,' but it is
HE who has a rabbinical argumentation, since he keeps speaking about WORDS,
without giving any relevant answer. It is all the more stupid as all the
theologians have not the same terminology regarding the issue of heresy and the
distinctions we are mentioning."
Another
poster became so disgusted by Fr. Cekada’s name-calling, diversionary tactics,
and generally un-priestly behavior, that she could not longer restrain herself
from saying:
“Fr
Cedaka cannot help himself in insulting (great piles of effluvia) Messrs Salza
and Siscoe in his latest refusal to answer [their article] “It's all over for
Fr Anthony Cekada.” His record as the potty mouthed Youtube priest makes it
hard for any reasonable person to accord him special respect. He shows
disrespect and disregard for his priestly office. His repeated inability to do
anything other than try and divert the subject, shows he cannot answer. If he
tried to answer honestly, he would realize his arguments do not work. His
efforts at confining the discussion to a spurious quibble on notorious heretics
really just further validates what Messrs Salza and Siscoe have been saying.”
As we can see, the “potty mouthed
Youtube priest” has been called out for his dishonesty.
In this installment of our two-part
feature, we will, again, address Fr. Cekada’s “new argument” head on, and prove,
with infallible certitude, that the recent Popes were not public heretics prior to their election. We will prove this beyond
any doubt by demonstrating that when a Pope is peacefully elected and presented
as Pope by the Cardinal electors, and/or when he is recognized as Pope by the
entire Church, his legitimacy is infallibly certain. And as a consequence of
his legitimacy being infallible, we
also have infallible certitude that all of the conditions (both positive and negative) required for him to become
a legitimate Pope were met. For example, if a man is accepted as Pope by the
entire Church, we have infallible certitude that he was 1) baptized, and 2) that he is a male (positive conditions); we
also have infallible certitude that he was
not 1) insane at the time, or 2) a public heretic (negative condition),
since an insane man or a public heretic cannot be validly elected Pope.
 |
| Fr. Paul Kramer |
Before we get to the thorough treatise
of John of St. Thomas, we will begin with some more simple explanations taken
from Msgr. Van Noort and Fr. E. Sylvester Berry, both of whom are authors that
the Sedevacantists themselves often cite.
Peaceful
and Universal Acceptance of a Pope
The peaceful and universal acceptance of
a Pope falls into the category of a dogmatic
fact, which is a secondary object of the Church’s infallibility. Theologians
explain that the unanimous acceptance of a Pope by the Church is an infallible sign – an “infallible
effect”[1] -
of his legitimacy. The unanimous acceptance does not cause the man to become a true Pope, but is instead an effect that would not be present unless
the cause (a true Pope) was itself present. Hence, if the Church universally
accepts a man as Pope, we have infallible certitude that he is, indeed, a true
Pope.
The reason the Church’s infallibility
extends to dogmatic facts is because they are so intimately related to dogma
that without certain knowledge of the fact
(e.g., is this man a true Pope?) there would be no certain knowledge of the
dogmas connected with it (that is, the dogmas the Pope promulgates for belief).
For example, if it were not certain that Pius XII was a true Pope, we would not
have certitude that the Assumption, which he defined as a dogma, was infallibly
true. The two truths are linked together in such a way that uncertainty
concerning the former would result in doubt regarding the latter.
The following, taken from Fr. Sylvester
Berry’s Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise,
The Church of Christ, further explains these principles:
"This
secondary or indirect extent of infallibility includes especially (a)
theological conclusions, (b) truths of the natural order, (c) dogmatic facts
(…)
"DOGMATIC
FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately
connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact
there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First]
Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the
election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before
decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or
binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible
in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as
well as in teaching, it follows that the practically
unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as
ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute
and infallible certainty of the fact."[2]
Notice the term “practically unanimous,”
which is distinct from “mathematically unanimous.” A practically unanimous
acceptance does not require acceptance by 100 percent of professing Catholics;
it is rather a morally unanimous
acceptance, which represents the “one mind” of the Church. As we will see
later, the fact that individual Catholics reject the legitimacy of a Pope does
not mean he has not been accepted by a morally
unanimous consent.
In the following quotation, Msgr. Van
Noort provides us with his explanation of the infallibility of dogmatic facts. He
also explains that the infallibility of dogmatic facts is qualified as theologically certain (and hence cannot
be denied without falling into sin).
"Assertion
2: The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic
facts. This proposition is theologically certain. A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation,
[but] on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma
or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with dogmatic
facts: ‘Was the [First] Vatican Council a legitimate ecumenical council? Is the
Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the
Bible? Was [past tense] Pius XII
legitimately elected Bishop of Rome? One can readily see that on these
facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the [First] Vatican Council
are infallible, whether the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Pius XII is to be [present
tense] recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church."[3]
In another
place, Msgr. Van Noort addresses the peaceful and universal acceptance of a
Pope from the perspective of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (the
teaching Church). And notice, once again, he refers to the currently reigning
Pope (Pius XII), not merely a “former Pope”:
"Meantime,
notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some
matters in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of
her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we
must hold with an absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the
following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly
defined in solemn fashion; (b) those
which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world
unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas). So, for example, one must give an
absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII is [present tense] the legitimate
successor of St. Peter’; similarly … one must give an absolute assent to
the proposition: ‘Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the
entire Church.’ For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven
infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to
take St. Peter’s place — when someone
has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically
been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is
clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly
clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession."[4]
Before
proceeding, we will refute one of Fr. Cekada’s self-defeating objections to
this teaching. Notice in the above quotations that Van Noort (who was writing at the time Pius XII was Pope) uses this
teaching to prove that Pius XII (the current Pope) was legitimately elected,
and hence that he was a true Pope. Van
Noort links together the infallible certitude of his past election in order to provide certitude concerning his current legitimacy. With this in mind,
let us turn to one of Cekada’s more desperate attempts at an objection.
Refuting
Cekada’s Novel Objection
Which Even He Doesn’t Follow!
Which Even He Doesn’t Follow!
Responding to an article written by
Laszlo Szijarto, and published by The
Angelus in 1995, Fr. Cekada attempted to argue that the infallible
certitude only applies to former Popes,
and not to current Popes (exactly
contrary to the explanation of Van Noort).
In Cekada’s own words:
"Mr.
Szijarto quotes the following passage from Hervé in an attempt to drive home
his point about dogmatic facts:
"‘What
good would it be to profess the infallible authority of Ecumenical Councils or
Roman Pontiffs in the abstract if it were permitted to entertain doubts about
the legitimacy of any given Council or Pontiff?’ (Hervé, op. cit., I.514.)
"Again
Mr. Szijarto is picking something out of context. Two sentences before the
foregoing passage, Hervé notes that a dogmatic fact concerning the legitimacy
of a council or a pope is principally historical.
The Church’s infallibility in this
respect precludes challenging the legitimacy of past General Councils or
pontificates that the Church has always accepted as legitimate.”
This incredulous objection of Cekada
only demonstrates that he either doesn’t think before he writes, or simply
doesn’t care what he writes, so long as he can swindle someone – anyone! – into
believing what only a warped mind could believe. As Van Noort, and every other
theologian teaches, the “historical” element
that Cekada refers to pertains to the fact that the Pope was (past tense) validly elected and accepted by a moral unanimity
of the Church, which is how we know that he “is to be [present tense] recognized as supreme ruler of the
universal Church” (Van Noort). If he
was validly elected and
accepted, he is the true
Pope. Moreover, Cekada, who wrote this objection during the pontificate of John
Paul II, was himself rejecting the “past” pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul
I, and thus violating his own concocted rule!
Now, since Cekada no longer holds to the
“old argument” that the recent Popes lost their office, he must concede that the recent Popes who were
accepted by the entire Church as Pope were, in fact, true and legitimate Popes. And guess what? Cekada himself concedes that Paul VI was accepted as a true Pope by the entire
Church! Yes, you also read that correctly. In his article “Bergoglio has
Nothing to Lose,” Cekada conceded the following:
"The sedevacantist thesis arose from a need to
explain how Paul VI, whom everyone at first recognized as a true pope when
he was elected in 1963, could have used papal authority to promulgate
doctrinal errors and evil laws."[5]
Notice, Cekada admits that “everyone at first
recognized [Paul VI] as a true pope,” yet, as a true schismatic, he publicly denies
his legitimacy. This is a devastating problem for Cekada, and one of many
examples of how he doesn’t even follow his own “rules.” In fact, it is more
than just a problem; it as a mortal sin
against the Faith. This is confirmed, for example, in the book On the Value of Theological Notes and the
Criteria for Discerning Them, by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951),
which was “was drafted for use by auditors of the Roman Congregations,”
according to John Daly, who translated a portion of it.
In the book, Fr. Cartechini explains
that the denial of a dogmatic fact – and the example he uses is the legitimacy
of the Pope – is “a mortal sin against the Faith.”[6] Yet
Cekada publicly teaches that one MUST hold that the post-Vatican II Popes who
were accepted as such by the Church – including Paul VI whom Cekada even admits
was recognized as a “true Pope” by “everyone” - have not been true Popes. And
he has spent nearly his entire priesthood trying to persuade others to do the
same. God only knows how many souls Fr. Cekada has led into mortal sin and
possibly damnation.
In his recent and, no doubt, poorly received video entitled “Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist,” Fr. Cekada admitted that he rejected Paul VI while he was still a seminarian, and that, as a result, he omitted Paul VI’s name from the first Mass he said. Speaking of himself and a few of his fellow seminarians, Cekada said:
In his recent and, no doubt, poorly received video entitled “Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist,” Fr. Cekada admitted that he rejected Paul VI while he was still a seminarian, and that, as a result, he omitted Paul VI’s name from the first Mass he said. Speaking of himself and a few of his fellow seminarians, Cekada said:
"We
concluded that Paul VI was a false pope and that the Holy See was vacant. (…) I
never prayed for Paul VI as Pope, even at my ordination Mass. And as organist,
I would not even accompany the chant for him at benediction."[7]
Let us now turn to the lengthy treatise
of John of St. Thomas on the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope, and deep
six Fr. Cekada’s “new argument” once and for all.
John
of St. Thomas Demolishes
Fr. Cekada’s “New Argument”
Fr. Cekada’s “New Argument”
John of St. Thomas begins his article on
this subject of the election of a true Pope with these words:
"Thus, in the present controversy we discuss
whether or not it is de fide that
this specific person, who has been legitimately elected, is the Pope and the
head of the Church, as well as the degree of certitude with which this
proposition is to be held."
He then provides
his answers:
"Our
conclusion is the following. It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, lawfully elected and accepted by the
Church, is the supreme pontiff and the successor of Peter, not only quoad se (in itself) but also quoad nos (for us) —although it is made
much more manifest quoad nos (to us)
when de facto the pope defines
something. In practice, no Catholic disagrees with our conclusion."
Next, he provides three reasons that this
proposition is true. Before reading them, we should note that when John of St.
Thomas refers to the Pope as the rule of
faith, this is true insofar as the Pope defines something to be held by the
Church, not when he is giving press interviews on an airplane or even when writing
in an encyclical. As we show at length in True
or False Pope?, non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium are not owed
the assent of faith; they are only owed
a “religious assent,” which itself is not unconditional. The Pope is the rule of faith only when he defines a
doctrine. This is explicit throughout John of St. Thomas’ treatise. Now, let
us see the three arguments he uses to prove the above thesis:
"[T]he
evidence for this conclusion rests upon three principal headings.
"THE FIRST is that he who
is chosen to be Pope is chosen to be a rule of faith, in such wise that, even
as a canonical book of Scripture is a written rule of faith, so the person
chosen to be Pope is a living rule of faith.
"THE SECOND is that Christ the Lord entrusted it to the Church
to choose for herself a man who, for a certain period of time, would be the
sort of rule of faith just described; and, consequently, the Church also
received the commission to determine, by her own act of acceptance, that this
man was canonically and legitimately elected. For, just as it pertains to
the Pope and the Church to determine which books are canonical, so it pertains
to the Church to determine which man has been chosen to be the norm and living
rule of the faith.
"THE THIRD is that this
matter—namely, whether a particular man has been lawfully elected and
canonically established as the rule of faith—is something that the Church can determine as a truth of faith."
Efficient
Cause: The Electors
In line with the method of the Angelic
Doctor, John of St. Thomas then proceeds to present and refute various
objections to his truthful teaching. The first objection pertains to the
efficient cause (the electors). The objection runs thus:
Objection:
“We cannot know with certainty of faith that the particular electors have a
valid intention of election, nor that they are true and legitimate Cardinals,
nor that they observed the form of election required by law, such as the
requirement that the Pope be elected by two-thirds majority of the cardinals,
as well as the other conditions without which the election is null.”
He responds by saying that because we
have infallible certitude that a man peacefully elected Pope and recognized as
Pope by the Church is, in fact, a true
Pope, it follows that we have certitude that the requisite conditions
were met. From the de fide truth (the man is a true Pope) follows the theological conclusion that the electors
met the necessary prerequisite conditions. We will quote him at length. A
little later we will discuss the definition he refers to below from Pope Martin
V:
"The
acceptance and definition of the Church, inasmuch as it gives the certitude of
faith [concerning the legitimacy of the Pope], does not touch upon the conditions of the election, or the
intention and genuine identity of the electors, without intermediary, but
rather mediately, and as a logical consequence of what it
immediately touches upon: namely, that whoever
is elected by the persons that the Church designates to choose a Pope in her
name, by the very fact that he is accepted by the Church as legitimately
elected, is in fact Pope. This
latter is what the definition of Martin "V, related above,[8]
as well as the acceptance of the Church, is really about. But from the de fide truth that
this man is Pope, it follows as a consequence that all the requisite conditions
must have been observed. For,
faith does not concern itself primarily with the conditions that must be realized in the electors, and only
afterwards with the person elected. So
it is with the definitions of Councils. Faith is not concerned with the
prerequisites of the definition—for instance, that the definition was preceded
by diligent investigation, or a disputation about the propositions to be
defined—for this is not the subject-matter of faith. Nevertheless, once the
definition has been given, one rightly infers as a theological conclusion that
all the things necessary for the definition were in place, and consequently
that there was a discussion preceding it.
(…)
"Likewise,
because it is de fide that
this man in particular, accepted by the Church as canonically elected, is the Pope,
the theological conclusion is
drawn that there were genuine electors, and a real intention of electing, as
well as the other requisites [e.g., the legitimate intention of the resigning
Pope, if the election follows a papal resignation], without which the de
fide truth could not stand. Therefore, we have the certainty of faith, by a revelation implicitly
contained in the Creed and in the
promise made to Peter, and made more explicit in the definition of Martin V,
and applied and declared in act (in exercitio) by the acceptance of the
Church, that this man in particular, canonically elected according to the acceptance
of the Church, is Pope. The certainty of faith touches this alone; and whatever
is prerequisite to, or else follows upon, the fact of the election, is inferred
as a theological conclusion drawn from the proposition that is de fide,
and is believed mediately."
What he shows is that Catholics do not
investigate whether the conditions
were satisfied in order to know if the man is a legitimate Pope (which
rebellious souls like Fr. Paul Kramer have presumed to do, and publicly). Rather,
the fact that a Pope has been accepted as Pope by the Church proves that the necessary
conditions were met. As John of St. Thomas explains, the belief in a “canonical
election” is “drawn” from the universal acceptance of the Pope, “according to
the acceptance of the Church” and not investigated and determined by Catholics
prior to the acceptance.
John of St. Thomas then explains that
the Cardinal electors represent the Church itself in proposing the man to the
faithful as Pope, and, consequently, their judgment represents the public
judgment of the Church that the man is Pope. This judgment alone suffices for
the universal acceptance. If there is any defect in the election, this is remedied
by the fact that the Universal Church (the bishops, priests and faithful)
accepts the man as Pope. John of St. Thomas teaches:
"The Church
accepts the election and the elect as a matter of faith, because she receives him as the
infallible rule of faith, and as the supreme head to whom she is united—for the
unity of the Church depends upon her union with him.
"To the objection that there must be someone to propose
this truth to the Church as de fide, I respond that the election and the one elected are proposed by the Cardinals, not in
their own person, but in the person of the Church and by her power—for she it
is who committed to them the power of electing the Pope and of declaring him to
have been elected. Wherefore they, in this respect and
for this task, are the Church herself representatively. Thus the Cardinals, or whoever else are
electors legitimately designated by the Church (that is, by the Pope), represent the Church in all that
concerns the election of her head, the successor of Peter. Just as the Pope gathers the bishops
together in a Council, and yet its confirmation and the ultimate sentence in
matters of faith depend upon him, so the congregation of Cardinals elects the Pope,
and declares that he has been elected, and yet it is the Church, whose
ministers they are, that by its acceptance ultimately confirms as a truth of
faith the fact that this man is truly the highest rule of faith and the supreme
pontiff. Wherefore, if the Cardinals elect him in a questionable
manner, the Church can correct their election, as the Council of Constance
determined in its 41st session. Hence,
the proposition is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by
the acceptance of the Church, and that alone, even before the Pope
himself defines anything. It is not [just] any acceptance at all of the Church,
but the acceptance of the Church in a
matter pertaining to the faith, since the Pope is accepted as a
determinate rule of faith."
"John of St. Thomas goes on to reply to
an objection:
Reply to another objection. It was argued above, that none of the
conditions necessary for the election are externally visible, but “that
everything takes place in the company of the electors, on whose testimony the
Church accepts the Pope. To this I reply
that it is not necessary that all those conditions, and the election itself,
and the intention of the electors be visible, but only that it be possible for
a moral certainty to be had of their accomplishment. This moral certainty comes of seeing the electors gathered
together for the act of electing, and peacefully proposing the man who has been
elected, and declaring him such. (…)
"So
in the present case, prior to the election, we can have only a moral certitude
that all the conditions strictly
necessary for a legitimate election are being met. Once the election is accepted, however, it becomes a
theological conclusion that all the conditions were met, since they have a
necessary connection with, and are of their very nature prerequisite to, this
truth of faith.
Definition of Pope Martin V
The definition of Pope Martin V,
referred to above, has its precedent in a definition from the Council of
Constance against the heretic Wycliff (who has much in common with the Sedevacantists
of our day). It is found after the last sessions of the Council in the
interrogation to be made against those whose faith is suspect. In order to
determine “whether they rightly believe,” the following question is put to
them: “Also, whether he believes that the Pope canonically elected, who is
reigning at the time (his proper name being given), is the successor of Blessed
Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God?”
As John of St. Thomas notes, this is not
a general question as to whether they believe a true Pope is the successor of
Blessed Peter, but whether the currently
reigning Pope – that is, the one accepted as such by the Church – is the
Successor of Blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God. John
of St. Thomas explains that the legitimacy of the currently recognized Pope,
accepted as such by the Church, is a
matter of Faith, by virtue of this definition. In his own words:
"These
words do not speak of the truth of that proposition understood in a general
sense—namely, that whoever is lawfully elected is the Supreme Pontiff—but in the particular, concerning whoever is Pope at the time,
giving his proper name, for instance, Innocent X [who was reigning at the time].
It is of this man, whose proper name is given, that the Pope
is bidding the person suspect in faith to be asked, whether he believes that
such a person is the successor of Peter and the Supreme Pontiff: therefore this pertains to the act of
faith—not to an inference or a moral certitude; for neither of the latter
two is a matter of faith." (Corpus, n. 13)
According to Fr. Cekada’s own testimony,
if this question of whether Paul VI was “the successor of Blessed Peter” was
put to him on the day of his ordination, or at anytime thereafter, he would
have responded “no,” even though he himself acknowledges that “everyone”
recognized Paul VI “as a true Pope.” This means Paul VI had, without question,
been universally accepted and hence his legitimacy was de fide. This also means that Cekada was ordained in the state of
objective mortal sin, which he has persevered in unrepentantly throughout his
entire priesthood. This is certainly an explanation for why his priesthood has
produced nothing but wicked and evil fruits.
Material
Cause: The One Elected
We now arrive at another objection that
is answered by John of St. Thomas. This objection concerns the conditions necessary for a person to be elected Pope (the
material cause), as opposed to the conditions required for the one doing the electing (the efficient
cause), which he addressed above. Here is the objection in the words of the
brilliant Dominican:
"Objection 3: The third
objection is in the line of material causality. The material cause is the
subject that, by being elected, receives in itself the papal dignity. We do not
have the certitude of faith that this subject is susceptible of this dignity;
neither, then, do we have the certitude of faith that he has, in fact, received
this dignity."
As the reader can see, this is precisely
the objection that Fr. Cekada himself raises in defense of his “new argument” –
namely, that the recent Popes could not be validly elected since they were
“public heretics” prior to their election, and hence lacked a necessary condition for receiving the papal
dignity. In light of what we have already seen, it is not difficult to figure
out how John of St. Thomas will refute this objection. But before reading what
John of St. Thomas has to say, we will allow Fr. Cekada to present his own
objection, in his own words. The following is transcribed from his recent
video:
"Could
the magic of universal pacific (sic) recognition turn someone into a true Pope
if he lacked one of the requirements [i.e, conditions]
of divine law for becoming Pope. Such as 1) baptized, 2) male, 3) age of
reason, 4) not insane, 5) not a pubic heretic, 6) not a schismatic. Would
universal acceptance make Mr. Imam a true Pope?
Bearded Rabbi? Her Excellency,
maybe? How about a toddler? Or, this guy
strapped into a canvas surplice? … Francis’ Protestant brother bishop? Or the
person on the right, whose transitioned into being a guy. He self-identifies as
a man. Could the universal pacific (sic) recognition transition “him” into a
true Pope as well? What do you think?” (Cekada
ends this portion of the video with a confident smirk, as someone who has just
utterly demolished an opponent’s argument.)"
We will allow John of St. Thomas to
reply to Cekada’s ridiculous objection and send him packing:
"The
answer here is similar to the preceding. Prior to the election, there is a
moral certainty that all these conditions
required in the person [to become Pope] are actually met. After the fact of the election and its acceptance, the fulfillment
of these conditions is known with the certainty of a theological conclusion,
since they have, per se, a logical implication with a truth that is
certain, and certified by faith."
John of St. Thomas also explains that it
would be contrary to the special providence of God for a man, who does not meet
the required conditions (for example, an Imam, “bearded Rabbi” or a “public
heretic”), to be accepted as Pope by the Church. He wrote:
"[I]t
is not merely a pious belief, but a theological conclusion (as we have stated),
that God will not permit one to be elected and peacefully accepted by the
Church who in fact does not meet the conditions
required; this would be contrary to the
special providence that God exercises over the Church and the assistance that
she receives from the Holy Ghost."
As he completely decimates Fr. Cekada’s
position, John of St. Thomas continues by addressing the objection that the conditions themselves are not de fide:
"I
answer that, when a particular truth is defined, it ought first to be
investigated; but, when a truth is defined that has a necessary connection with
another truth, investigation need not be made into that other, conjoined truth,
but only into the truth that is itself the object of the definition. Now, the truth that is defined and
accepted by the Church is not that this man is baptized or ordained, etc., but
that this man is truly pope. (…) That he
is baptized and meets the other requirements [i.e., that he is not a
public heretic] is not held as de fide
or defined by the Church, but is inferred as a consequence; and that something
be inferred as a consequence does not require any preceding investigation. (…) the
truth that this man has been ordained, and has the power of order (that is, of
the priesthood or episcopate), is certain in the same way as the truth that he
is baptized is certain; namely, not as a truth immediately de fide, but as a theological conclusion necessarily connected with
the truth that he is the Pope and the rule of faith in the Church."
As we can see, if a man “is lawfully elected
and accepted by the Church” as Pope, his legitimacy is de fide, and, consequently, it is infallibly true that he possessed
the necessary conditions to become Pope. What this obviously means, as John of
St. Thomas stated above, is that it
is not possible for the Church to elect and accept as Pope, one who
does not meet the required conditions. In other words, it is not possible for the Church to elect and accept as
Pope a “public heretic,” as Fr. Cekada falsely claims. But that, according to
Cekada, is exactly what at least the last six Conclaves (since the election of
Paul VI) have done. According to Cekada, these Conclaves have done the
impossible.
And lest the crafty and deceptive Cekada tries
to switch back to his “old argument” by claiming that Paul VI lost his office
AFTER he first became a true Pope (since he himself has been caught admitting that
he was accepted as a true Pope by “everyone”), we point out that in his recent
video he claim that Paul VI was also a public heretic PRIOR to his election. The
following is a transcript from the video:
"In
April 2014, Robert Siscoe published an article entitled “Bellarmine and Suarez
on the Question of a Heretical Pope.” Mr. Siscoe attempted to reconcile
Bellarmine and Suarez’ teaching on loss of office for a Pope who became a
public heretic. And thus, so Mr. Siscoe thought, to refute the Sedevacantist
position.The problem, as I pointed out in an article the following month, is
that Sedevantists no longer believed that Bergoglio, Ratzinger, JP2 and the rest, ever became true
Popes in the first place. These men were public heretics, and canonists taught
that as a matter of divine law, a public heretic could not be validly elected
Pope."[9]
Notice the words “and
the rest” which is plural (i.e., includes at least two more Popes). This
obviously includes Paul VI, since John Paul I and Paul VI were the two Popes
immediately preceding John Paul II. So,
on the one hand, Cekada claims Paul VI was a “public heretic” prior to his
election (lacking a condition for becoming Pope), yet he also concedes that
“everyone” accepted him as a true Pope (which proves that all of the conditions
were met). It does not take a genius to see the complete inconsistency in Cekada’s
argumentation. Yet, these are the kinds of arguments the “potty mouthed Youtube priest” has been making for years.
It’s as plain
as day that Cekada’s “new argument” – that the recent Popes have not be true
Popes because they were all “public heretics” prior to their election (and
hence incapable of becoming valid Popes), is completely false, since they were all “peacefully and lawfully
elected” by the Cardinals, which itself suffices for universal recognition and
the infallible certitude that they were true Popes. And, furthermore, they were
also accepted as Pope by at least a morally unanimity of Catholics, which proves
their legitimacy even if there was a defect in the election itself.
Sedevacantists Don’t Like John of St.
Thomas?
Let’s See What Cardinal Billot Says…
Let’s See What Cardinal Billot Says…
Now, in light
of the fact that certain Sedevacantist apologists have begun rejecting any quotation
that does not come from the 20th century (a new tactic that allows
them to completely disregard a tsunami of quotations we have marshalled which destroys
their thesis), we will end by quoting the great 20th century Thomist
theologian, Cardinal Billot. Note well that the Sedevacantists have already
approved Cardinal Billot as an authority on the papacy, when a few months ago
they said that his teaching about Nestorius was helpful to prove their old “loss
of office Zombie argument” (so named by Cekada, who calls it a “Zombie argument”
because he claims it no longer applies).
Unfortunately for them, we completely exposed their attempt to falsify Billot’s teaching in a detailed feature on Nestorius, which they have not answered (they can’t). Nevertheless, in light of their glowing admiration for the Cardinal, which they expressed in their (refuted) article on Nestorius, let us see what Billot has to say about the legitimacy of a Pope who has been accepted as such by the Church.
Unfortunately for them, we completely exposed their attempt to falsify Billot’s teaching in a detailed feature on Nestorius, which they have not answered (they can’t). Nevertheless, in light of their glowing admiration for the Cardinal, which they expressed in their (refuted) article on Nestorius, let us see what Billot has to say about the legitimacy of a Pope who has been accepted as such by the Church.
"Therefore,
from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her
as the head to the body, it is no
longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a
possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.
For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in
the election and proves infallibly
the existence of all the required conditions."[10]
Once again, that sounds an awful lot like
John of St. Thomas, when he says that the adhesion of the Church “heals in the
roof all fault in the election.” So much for the Siri Theory, since even if
there was an irregularity with the election of Angelo Cardinal Roncalli (John
XXIII), the entire Church accepted him as Pope, which “heals in the root all
fault in the election.” St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Doctor of the Church, teaches
the same:
"It
is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately
elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he
was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff."[11]
In another place in
the same book, Billot confirms the above teaching of John of St. Thomas when he
says that the infallible providence of God will never permit the entire Church
to adhere to a false head:
"[T]he
infallible providence of God will prevent it from ever happening that the whole
Church adhere to a false head; consequently, no one will ever be accepted as supreme pontiff who does not meet
all the conditions necessary to be a member, whatever those conditions
may be. That visibility, therefore, by which the true Church is recognizable as
such, is in no way imperiled."[12]
Notice the consistency here with all of the
theologians we have quoted, from Van Noort and Fr. Berry, to John of St.
Thomas, and now Cardinal Billot and St. Alphonsus. How is it, then, that Cekada
rejects this de fide doctrine of
universal acceptance? Once again we ask: is he really this ignorant, or can we
conclude that he is acting with malice (and his outright lies are evidence of
same), and will do anything to avoid admitting he has been wrong most of his
life?
Fr.
Cekada is “Chopped Liver”:
Refuting One Final Ridiculous Objection
Refuting One Final Ridiculous Objection
Let us briefly address one more objection of
Fr. Cekada. He argues that because he and the other members of his
Sedevacantists sect reject the recent Popes, it means they were not universally accepted by the Church
(which means he knows that if they were
universally accepted, he is in grave error). He presented this argument in his video,
“Stuck in a Rut,” where he says: “Sedevacantists Reject the Post Vatican II
Popes. So the acceptance is clearly not universal.”
He then adds: “What are we? Chopped liver?”
There are
obvious problems with this objection as well. First, Sedevacantists have
publicly defected from the Church by joining a non-Catholic sect (cf. canon 188.4). That means they are not Catholics. Having openly
rejected the Church’s social Magisterium, they are, as Cardinal Billot teaches,[13]
public and notorious heretics and schismatics. The “vote” of non-Catholics obviously
does not count. In fact, like a true schismatic, Cekada himself admitted, in
the same video, that he would have rejected whoever was elected Pope by the
recent Conclave, which is obviously the case since he has lost his Faith in the
Church (just as Jesus’ disciples lost Faith in Him during His Passion). In Cekada’s
own words:
Anyone
who the conclave had elected would have been just as much a Pope as Francis, which
is to say, no pope at all.[14]
There you have
it. According to Cekada, not a single
Cardinal in the Conclave could have been validly elected Pope. Not one! In a
single sentence, then, Fr. Cekada confirms that he has rejected the visible
Church (the visible social unit founded by Christ) and has publicly defected
from the Faith. So yes, Fr. Cekada, when it comes to the opinion of your
Sedevacantist cult regarding who is and is not the true Pope, your “vote” is
indeed equivalent to “chopped liver.”
Second, even if Sedevacantists were
actually Catholics (which they are not), they would constitute less than a
fraction of one percent (.00001%) of the entire Catholic Church. That means
there would still be universal
acceptance (a morally unanimous acceptance) of the conciliar Popes, even if we
counted their “vote.”
As we noted earlier, the acceptance of a Pope does not require a 100 percent mathematical acceptance, but only a practical, or moral unanimity. This is confirmed by Cardinal Billot who applied the teaching of the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope to the scandalous papacy of Alexander VI, which was not accepted as legitimate by all. The Cardinal uses the doctrine in question to prove that Alexander VI was a true and valid Pope, even though there were some in Alexander VI’s day who believed him to be a false Pope and public apostate (or at least a “manifest heretic”).
As we noted earlier, the acceptance of a Pope does not require a 100 percent mathematical acceptance, but only a practical, or moral unanimity. This is confirmed by Cardinal Billot who applied the teaching of the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope to the scandalous papacy of Alexander VI, which was not accepted as legitimate by all. The Cardinal uses the doctrine in question to prove that Alexander VI was a true and valid Pope, even though there were some in Alexander VI’s day who believed him to be a false Pope and public apostate (or at least a “manifest heretic”).
Girolamo
Savonarola, the controversial Dominican monk, was one who had denied that
Alexander VI was a true Pope. In a letter to the Emperor, Savonarola wrote:
"The
Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for some time past,
allowed the Church to be without a pastor. For I bear witness in the name of
God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. For quite apart
from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal]
tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to
auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and
quite apart from his other vices - well-known to all - which I will pass over
in silence, this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude,
that the man is not a Christian, he does
not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final
limits of infidelity and impiety."[15]
In spite of the
scandals of Alexander VI’s papacy, including the grave accusations of heresy,
apostasy, and illicit acquisition of the Papal See through simony, leveled by
his contemporaries, Cardinal Billot explains that the universal acceptance
proves certain that Alexander VI was indeed a legitimate Pope. The Cardinal
explains:
"Let
this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts
at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter
[Savonarola] broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal
to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other
reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is
enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his
letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and
obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a
false Pope, but a legitimate one.”[16]
The same,
of course, is true with the Vatican II Popes. All of Christendom has indeed
“adhered” to them as “the true Pontiff.” And as we saw, Fr. Cekada himself
acknowledged that “everyone” accepted Paul VI as a true and legitimate Pope,
yet he nevertheless rejected him – just as he has done with all of his
successors.
And Cekada’s
statement that Paul VI had been accepted by everyone was confirmed in the
December, 1965 issue of the American
Ecclesiastical Review. In the publication, Fr. Francis J. Connell explained
the teaching of the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope, and applied it
to Paul VI himself, who, he confirmed at the time, had been accepted by the
entire Church as Pope. And note also that the following was written the very
month that Paul VI ratified the documents of Vatican II. Here is the Q&A
that appeared in the publication:
"Question:
What
certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the
universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid
baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?
"Answer:
Of
course, we have human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly
elected in conclave and accepted the office of Bishop of Rome, thus becoming
head of the universal Church. The unanimous consensus of a large group of
Cardinals composing the electoral body gave us this assurance. And we also have
human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly baptized, since
there is a record to that effect in the baptismal register of the church in
which the sacrament was administered. We have the same type of certainty that
any bishop is the true spiritual head of the particular See over which he
presides. This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.
"But in the case of the Pope we
have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the
prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In
other words, we have infallible certainty that the present Sovereign
Pontiff [Paul VI] has been incorporated into the Church by a valid baptism and
has been validly elected head of the universal Church. For if we did
not have infallible assurance that
the ruling Pontiff is truly in the eyes of God the chief teacher of the Church
of Christ, how could we accept as infallibly true his solemn pronouncements?
This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation
but is so intimately connected with revelation that it must be within the scope
of the Church’s magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. The whole
Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this
it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical
– not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church."[17]
Once again we
see that we have “infallible certainty” that Paul VI (and the Popes who
followed him), met the conditions necessary to be validly elected, which
means that they were not “public heretics” prior to their election.
Let us return
to the treatise of John of St. Thomas to find out precisely when the universal acceptance becomes
sufficient to prove that the man is a legitimate Pope.
"All
that remains to be determined, then, is the exact moment when the
acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition de fide. Is it as soon as the cardinals
propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate locality, or only
when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread through the whole world,
wherever the Church is to be found?
"I
REPLY that (as we have said above) the unanimous election of the cardinals and
their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops of a Council
legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like
a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is
realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the
news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual
acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the
election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon
as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not
contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept
him."
Note that John
of St. Thomas says the Cardinals’ election and declaration “is similar to a definition
given by the bishops of a Council legitimately gathered (the ecclesia docens), which is “confirmed”
by the rest of the Church through its “acceptance” of the election (the ecclesia discens). And while, in John of
St. Thomas’ time, this positive acceptance happened gradually as the news
spread throughout the Church and the word, in our information age, the news spreads
world-wide almost immediately.
This means that the universal acceptance would
be manifest very quickly – at least within the first several days following the
election. Hence, in the words of John of St. Thomas, if “the Church does not
contradict the news of the election” when it “becomes known” (which is
immediate), this fact would provide infallible certitude that he was a
legitimate Pope.
John of St. Thomas then refutes the error of
Bishop Sanborn, who claims that the recent Popes were indeed “legally elected,”
but denies that they became true
Popes. John of St. Thomas replies:
"Nor is there a real difference
between the proposition, 'This man is properly elected,' and, 'This man is Pope,' since to be accepted as the Supreme Pontiff and to be the Supreme Pontiff are
the same, just as it is the same for something to be defined, and for the
definition to be legitimate.
The final issue
John of St. Thomas addresses is whether those who deny the legitimacy of a
Pope, who has been accepted by the entire Church as such, are “only” schismatics,
or are also heretics:
"Whoever
would deny that a particular man is Pope after he has been peacefully and
canonically accepted, would not only be
a schismatic, but also a heretic;
for, not only would he rend the unity of the Church… but he would also add to
this a perverse doctrine, by denying
that the man accepted by the Church is to be regarded as the Pope and the rule
of faith. Pertinent here is the teaching of St. Jerome (Commentary on Titus,
chapter 3) and of St. Thomas (IIa IIae Q. 39 A. 1 ad 3), that every schism
concocts some heresy for itself, in order to justify its withdrawal from the
Church. Thus, although schism is
distinct from heresy, in most cases it is accompanied by the latter, and
prepares the way for it. In the case
at hand, whoever would deny the proposition just stated would not be a pure
schismatic, but also a heretic, as Suarez also reckons (above, in the
solution to the fourth objection)."
This means that Fr. Anthony Cekada, who
has publicly and notoriously rejected the conciliar Popes who he admits have been accepted as such
by the Church, is a public heretic
(in the words of John of St. Thomas). And those who follow Cekada need to
realize that by doing so they are at
least guilty of an objective mortal
sin against the Faith (according to Cartechini), and are also heretics (according to
John of St. Thomas).
Now we can better understand why there are such rotten fruits in the Sedevacanatist sect, and why the former Sedevacantist, Laszlo Szijarto, would say:
Now we can better understand why there are such rotten fruits in the Sedevacanatist sect, and why the former Sedevacantist, Laszlo Szijarto, would say:
"I
myself had once been a Sedevacantist. Only in retrospect can I honestly see the
great bitterness and lack of charity that this led to on my part. I have found nothing but spiritual disorder
– to one extent or another – in all the Sedevacantists I have ever met
(myself included and foremost among them). It would be best to leave out the
numerous downfalls – in scandalous fashion – of bitter Sedevacantists."[18]
The
notorious Sedevacantist apologist, John Lane, admitted that he himself has no
answer for the rotten fruits he sees in members of his sect. He wrote:
 |
| Notorious Sedevacantist, John Lane |
Are such rotten fruits among sects of
heretics really that surprising? Of course not, because the devil is their author
and master.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this second installment,
along with our first installment of our feature “It’s All Over for Fr. Anthony
Cekada,” have demonstrated with absolute certainty that Cekada’s Sedevacantist
position is erroneous, and even heretical. Our features have proven that (1)
the conciliar Popes do not qualify as “public heretics” because there was no
public pertinacity (which would be present only if they defected from the
Church or renounced her as the infallible rule of Faith, which they did not do);
and, (2) they could not have been public heretics before or after their
elections because they were accepted as Popes by the universal Church (a moral
unanimity), and, as Cardinal Billot said, the “infallible
providence of God will prevent it from ever happening that the whole Church
adhere to a false head.”
This
should be more than enough for any reasonable person who is seeking the truth
to conclude that Fr. Cekada’s position is totally, completely, and utterly
false, and that he has run out of arguments. As we say in the title of this
two-part feature, it is truly over
for Fr. Cekada and his Sedevacantist enterprise. Because a rejection of the lawful
successor of St. Peter is heresy (according to John of St. Thomas) and a mortal
sin against the Faith, Fr. Anthony Cekada needs to renounce his Sedevacantist
position and be reconciled with the Church, or face eternal damnation.
Mary, Conqueror of All Heresies, pray
for Fr. Cekada and the unfortunate souls who have followed him.
UPDATE: We are sad to report that Fr. Cekada died outside of the Church, on September 11, 2020, without ever having renounced his errors and heresies.
[1] Wernz-Vidal, Ius
Can., II. p. 520, note 171, cited in The Theological Hypothesis of a Heretic
Pope, Silveira, p. 185.
[2] The Church of
Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290.
[4] Sources of
Revelation, p. 265 (emphasis added).
[5] “Bergoglio Has
Nothing to Lose”
http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/.
[6]
http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html.
[7] Marcel Lefebvre:
Sedevacantist: 10:07-13, 12:45-57.
[8] “Martin V, in the Council of Constance, in the
condemnation of the errors of Wyclif, which is to be found after the fourth,
fifth, and last sessions of the Council, in the interrogations that are to be
made of those whose faith is suspect, to see whether they rightly believe, puts
this question. Also, whether he
believes that the Pope canonically elected, who is reigning at the time (his
proper name being given), is the successor of Blessed Peter, having supreme
authority in the Church of God?
These words do not speak of the truth of that proposition understood in
a general sense—namely, that whoever is lawfully elected is the Supreme
Pontiff—but in the particular, concerning whoever is pope at the time, giving
his proper name, for instance, Innocent X. It is of this man, whose proper name
is given, that the pope is bidding the person suspect in faith to be asked,
whether he believes that such a person is the successor of Peter and the Supreme
Pontiff: therefore this pertains to the act of faith—not to an inference or a
moral certitude; for neither of the latter two is a matter of faith.” (Corpus,
n. 13)
[9] “Dead on
Arrival,” 21:00-21:40.
[10] Billot, Tractatus
de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-613 (emphasis added).
[11] Liguori, Verita
della Fede, in “Opera…,”vol. VIII., p. 720, n. 9.
[12] Billot, Tractatus
de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, Q. 7: “On the Members of the Church”.
[13]“The notion of
heresy, however, includes another element: departure from the social
magisterium, which was divinely constituted to be the authoritative organ for
the proposal of revealed truth in Christian society” (Billot, Tractatus de
Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, Q. 7: “On the Members of the Church”).
[14] Stuck in a Rut,
21:30-37.
[15] Schnitzer,
Savonarola, Italian translation by E. Rutili (Milan, 1931), vol. II, p. 303.
Quoted in Journet’s The Church of the Word Incarnate, p. 484 (emphasis
added).
[17] American
Ecclesiastical Review, vol. 153, Dec. 1965, p. 422 (emphasis added).
[18] Szijarto,
Laszlo, “Pope Sifting - Difficulties with Sedevacantism,” the Angelus magazine,
October 1995 (emphasis added).
[19] True or False Pope?, p. 654.
