Fr. Cekada Caught Lying Again In His Recent Video
See How Cardinal Billot Shows
His “Public Sin of Heresy” Theory is “Dead on Arrival”
(the title of his latest video)
Part I
(See Part II here)
See How Cardinal Billot Shows
His “Public Sin of Heresy” Theory is “Dead on Arrival”
(the title of his latest video)
Part I
(See Part II here)
 |
| Fr. Anthony Cekada |
This feature is
lengthy, but the patient reader will be rewarded with much clarity regarding
the key error of Fr. Cekada.
Cekada’s stated
position is that a Pope loses his office, or is prevented from being validly
elected to the office, for what he calls the “public sin” of heresy. Not
wishing to be pinned down, he carefully avoids defining his concocted
terminology, but it is clear that by the “public sin” of heresy, he essentially
means the internal sin of heresy that the person manifests to many by his external actions (but actions that are not public heresy, as such, as we will explain later). These
external actions are what lead others to conclude that he is guilty of the
sin of heresy, which, Cekada claims, places the perpetrator outside the Church.
That’s Cekada’s Sedevacantist thesis in a nutshell.
As we will see
(and as we have already presented in our book and prior features), while such
an individual may be guilty of the internal sin
of heresy, and may even have “manifest his heresy by external signs,” he will
only be considered an occult heretic
(and hence still a member of the Church), unless his pertinacity is also public.
And his pertinacity would be public only if he publicly renounced the Church as the infallible rule of Faith –
either by publicly defecting from the Catholic religion, or by publicly
admitting that he knowingly and willfully
rejects a dogma proposed as such by the Church. This is the common teaching of
all the theologians, and most notably, the aforementioned Cardinal Billot, a
favorite among Sedevacantist apologists. Now, because none of the recent Popes
have publicly manifested their pertinacity (either before or after their
elections), Cekada’s “public sin of heresy” theory is “Dead on Arrival.” This
point alone puts the last shovel of dirt over Anthony Cekada’s Sedevacantist grave.
To summarize,
in this feature we prove, among other things, the following:
- We have accurately presented Fr. Cekada’s position in our book and articles, even though he claims his position is founded on the “public sin of heresy” as opposed to internal sin of heresy alone (we will explain what we mean by “alone” later).
- There is a difference between a public sin against the Faith and public heresy. Heresy is a sin against the Faith, but not all sins against the Faith are heresy.
- Heresy requires pertinacity. Hence, the “public sin” of heresy requires public pertinacity. If pertinacity is not manifest, there is no formal public sin of heresy, but only what must be presumed to be material heresy – regardless of whether the manifested heretical utterance was public (i.e., externalized to many) or occult (i.e., externalized to no one or only a small number). One who knowingly and willfully rejects the Faith interiorly can even “manifest his heresy by external signs” and commit an external sin against the Faith, yet still remain an “occult” heretic.
- Public pertinacity would be manifest if the perpetrator publicly defected from the Catholic religion, or renounced, by public profession, the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium (which none of the Vatican II Popes have done, either before or after their elections).
- Fr. Cekada ambiguously uses the terms “public sin of heresy” and “public heresy,” but his explanation never requires that pertinacity be public; only that the perpetrator committed a “moral” offense against “divine law” (which even occurs if the sin is secret, or “occult”).
- Further, in Cekada’s deceptive methodology, whether or not the “moral” offense has been committed is discerned by private judgment, through the observance of external actions – even though the external actions are not public heresy, as such (with public pertinacity). These external actions are what lead others to conclude that the internal “sin” (the moral offense) has been committed. This is precisely how Cekada’s most prominent disciple, Mario Derksen of NovusOrdoWatch.com, explains their position.
- What this means is that when Fr. Cekada uses the term “public sin of heresy” and “public heresy,” his explanation is actually referring to “occult” formal heresy, and not “public formal heresy, since there is no public formal heresy without public pertinacity. (And in the video, Cekada explicitly states that the reason Francis is not Pope is because he was a "public formal heretic" prior to his election.)
- And because Fr. Cekada admits that “occult” heresy does not cause the loss of ecclesiastical office (nor does it prevent a man from being validly elected Pope), exposing his erroneous use of the terms “public sin” and “public heretic,” completely decimates his Sedevacantist thesis – both his “old argument” (loss of office) and his “new” one (never validly elected in the first place). This is why it’s all over for Fr. Cekada and his “public sin of heresy” theory. He better start thinking up another “new argument”.
Let’s now turn
to our present article, which provides a substantial amount of background in
order to help the reader understand Cekada’s error from every angle.
Clearing
Up the Lies and Red-Herrings
Before we get
into Fr. Cekada’s error on the “public sin” of heresy, we remind our readers
that Sedevacantists are masters at avoiding quotations and arguments that
utterly refute their position, while using red-herrings to divert the attention
of their followers. We’ve seen this in spades with their conspicuous avoidance
(even deletion) of Bellarmine’s rejection of the Second and Third Opinions in De Romano Pontifice (which refutes their
theory); with Mario Derksen’s avoidance of our public challenge to come out of
his shell and respond to our “Fact vs. Law” feature; with Fr. Kramer blocking
us from his Facebook page so we can
no longer directly interact with his posts, and many, many other examples. This
avoidance technique is precisely the approach that one also finds regularly in
the polemics of Fr. Cekada, who has mastered the art like few others before
him. We have a perfect example of his deceptive technique in his latest video,
which he, quite ironically, entitled “True
or False Pope? Dead on Arrival.”
Cekada begins
the video with his customary insults (which he usually combines with
inappropriate name-calling, so unbecoming for a priest), in an attempt to
discredit his opponents and appeal to the will
(not the intellect) of his audience.
By calling his opponents names and presenting them in the worst possible light,
he seeks to place himself on a pedestal of superiority. One can understand why
Cekada would feel the need to wrap his arguments in such accidents, since his actual arguments (the substance) are so shallow and easily refuted. And with his decades
of practice he perfected the craft.
For example, he
appeals to the imagination of his
viewers by comparing True or False Pope?
to, get this, Karl Marx’s Das Kapital,
and “the little red book by Mao Tse-tung.” Can you believe that? So, according
to Fr. Cekada, all those Traditional Catholics who have endorsed our book,
including Bishop Fellay and his seminarian theologians, are on par with the Communists
and atheists!? He then appeals to the will and emotion of his readers by
describing True or False Pope? as
“700 pages of wooden, repetitive, polemical pros. The style is unbearable…”
Again, this is another example of his emotionally driven “polemics” designed to
poison the well and discourage as many members of the Sedevacantist sect as possible
from reading the book. After all, who would want read a book that is “wooden
and repetitive, with a style that is unbearable”? Unfortunately for Fr. Cekada,
some of his followers are reading the
book, and based on the feedback we have received, many of their eyes are
finally being opened to Cekada’s errors and deception.
For example,
here is a note we received from a former Sedevacantist whose entire family left
the sect after reading the book:
"I
have finally finished the book. To state that it exceeded my expectations would
be putting it too lightly, for the book achieved far more than that. It
presented profound and complex ecclesiological doctrines in a very clear,
precise and effective manner that was easy to follow and yet did not "dumb
it down." Nor did the book engage in the prurient school-yard rhetoric
which is apparently so beloved by the extremist polemicists whose errors and
heresies it efficaciously refutes."
In a follow up
e-mail he wrote:
"My
family and I have held extensive and profound discussions regarding the
contents of your book, particularly in light of our experience of the
sedevacantist sects' culture and politics throughout the past fifteen years. I
had been the only member of my family who had discontinued adhering to the
sedevacantists' errors. However, thanks mostly to the information you and Mr.
Salza presented in Chapters 9 through 12, my family has also rejected the
folklore of the sedevacantists and have resolved to discontinue attending their
old CMRI Mass-center."
In light of
such responses, we can understand why Fr. Cekada would use every technique
possible to discourage his flock from reading the book. And if the book is
really so bad, and so unbearable to read, as Cekada pretends, why has he been
spending so much time producing one video after another in an attempt to
discredit it? You know why, we know why, Fr. Cekada knows why; and Fr. Cekada
knows that we know he knows why.
Fr.
Cekada Deceives His Viewers With a Blatant Lie
In his video, Cekada craftily eliminates the chapters he is
unable to respond to by simply saying they are “extraneous,” or by making a
snide remark, and simply casting it side. This includes Chapter 17 which is
specifically dedicated to refuting his particular
error on the new rite of episcopal consecration, which obviously means that
Cekada has no answer to our refutation. He also attempts to convince his viewers
that our book is irrelevant because Sedevacantists no longer argue that the recent Popes lost their office due
to heresy [translation: His argument was sufficiently refuted, so he switched
tactics.], but instead now claim that none of the post Vatican II Popes were
validly elected to begin with (thereby preventing them from having to deal with
the prior refutations).
 |
| Screen shot from Cekada's video |
Poor Fr. Cekada. Desperately seeking ways to
explain why he has no response to the chapters that have refuted the very
arguments he has made for over 20 years.
But even more embarrassing for Fr. Cekada is this simple question: Is what he
has claimed about Chapters 6-12 in our book true? Do chapters 6 through 12 really
deal exclusively with the loss of office? Or is Fr. Cekada trying to
pull another fast one on his unsuspecting viewers? Let’s find out. Here’s how chapter 12 begins:
"Fr. Cekada
proceeded to inform his followers that Sedevecantists should no longer argue
that the conciliar Popes lost their office due to heresy, but should instead
insist that they were never validly elected to begin with. He explained
that his previous research had not only revealed that “a public heretic
automatically lost his office and papal authority,” but also that “a public
heretic could not become pope in the first place.” Thus, the new argument goes
like this: Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis) was a public heretic before being
elected Pope, and therefore he could not have been validly elected Pope
(because, as they say, a heretic cannot be elected Pope). Cekada explains: “It
is to this theological principle (rather than ‘loss of office’) that
Sedevacantists must now appeal … As a public heretic, he [Bergoglio] could not
be validly elected pope.”[2]
So you see, dear reader, what Fr. Cekada told his viewers is
a bold-faced lie. As the foregoing quotation from our book proves, we do address
the “new argument” after all.
And we should also note that, contrary to what Cekada
claims, Chapters 6, 7 and 8 also do
not address the loss of office. Chapter 6 explains what merely renders
a person suspect of heresy; chapter 7 discusses the difference between heresy
and lesser errors, and chapter 8 addresses papal infallibility. Yet Cekada
disregards these chapters by claiming that they all deal with the “old argument”
of loss of office.
Fr. Cekada then
tells his viewers that we should have removed all the material from our book
that discusses the loss of office (“Chapters 6 through 12 – nearly 250 pages”),
since, as he says, this argument no longer applies. But if it no longer
applies, why haven’t Cekada and his followers removed the material from their
website that defends their “loss of office” theory? This is a huge problem for
Fr. Cekada’s contention, wouldn’t you say? And if this argument is no longer
relevant, why did Cekada’s most fervent disciple, Mario Derksen, recently write
an entire article in order to present a new “proof-text” from Cardinal Billot
to argue for the “loss of office” theory?[3] Didn’t Fr. Cekada just say that this argument
no longer applied? What’s going on here? Here’s the explanation.
As we have noted many times before, the Sedevacantists
constantly switch back and forth between their arguments, just like the Protestants. As soon as you pin them down by refuting one
argument, they simply switch to another. They will use whatever argument they
can to lead Catholics out of the Church and into their sect, even if they
believe the argument no longer applies. That is why it was necessary for us to
address all of their arguments in one
book. Doing so leaves them no escape
except to do what Cekada did in his video, namely: 1) present what he claims is
his “current” argument; 2) pretend that we did not address the argument, and
then 3) claim that the chapter in which we addressed
and refuted the argument actually dealt with an unrelated issue. Cekada certainly knows how to cover all of his
bases.
In some respects, you really do have to
hand it to Fr. Cekada, particularly at this stage in his life. There are few
individuals more skillful and resolute than he at spinning a web of deceit to
lead Catholics out of the Church. The anti-Catholic Jack Chick has nothing over
Fr. Anthony Cekada. It’s hard to imagine that anyone could have mastered the art of deception as Cekada has without having formal training in the craft. But then again, perhaps
he’s just a natural?
Fr.
Cekada Falsely Claims That We
“Misrepresented” His Position
“Misrepresented” His Position
Fr. Cekada’s claim of misrepresentation is
foundational to his entire thesis (and the Sedevacantist thesis as a whole).
The accusation contains two issues that we will address. First, he claims that
we have misrepresented his position by saying he holds that the internal sin of
heresy causes the loss of office. He responded by saying that he believes no
such thing. “I have clearly maintained” says Cekada, “that it is public heresy that prevents a heretic
from either becoming a true Pope or from retaining the papal office.”
What we will demonstrate
in this feature article is that what Fr. Cekada calls “public heresy” (or “the public
sin of heresy) is really only occult
heresy, and we will support our claim by citing the authority of one of
Cekada’s favorite theologians, Cardinal Billot.
This point is extremely
important since Fr. Cekada himself admits that a man who is an occult heretic
can be validly elected Pope and can remain Pope. Therefore, if we are correct
(that Cekada’s understanding of “public heresy” is actually occult heresy, and it is, as you will
see), then Cekada will have no choice but to concede that he has been wrong,
all these years, and that the recent Popes have all been true Popes. This is
why we titled this feature “It’s All Over for Fr. Anthony Cekada.” Indeed, it
is.
The
second issue (which we will address first), is Cekada’s claim that we have
erred in Chapter Five of our book (the only chapter he covers in any depth in
the video) by, in his own words, “confusing the internal sin of heresy with
occult heresy. And they continue to do
so” says Fr. Cekada, “at least 70 times throughout their ensuing arguments.” He
goes on to say: “Internal heresy pertains to the mode of expression of the
heretical act; occult pertains to how many people know of the heretical act.” He
proceeds to accuse us of setting up a false opposition between internal heresy and
public heresy, which, he says, are in different categories.
It is difficult to believe that Fr. Cekada
would present this as an argument against what we wrote in Chapter 5, and this
shows that Cekada is either a deliberate deceiver or an ignoramus. The purpose
of the chapter was to show that the internal sin of heresy alone does not cause the loss of papal office. We prove this by
showing that a Pope who is an occult heretic remains Pope; and an occult
heretic is one who is guilty of the internal sin of heresy. So, in Chapter 5,
we are equating internal heresy alone - and by alone we mean formal heresy that was not public (i.e., not externalized to many) - with occult heresy. That is what the word alone was intended to convey. And the
context of the chapter makes this perfectly clear. For example, we wrote the following (while
also addressing Cekada’s “new” argument):
"The
sin of heresy alone neither prevents
a man from being elected Pope, nor does it cause a Pope to fall from the
pontificate, since the internal sin does
not sever the external bonds of unity, which themselves suffice for a Pope
to retain his office. If the sin of heresy alone
caused a Pope to lose his office, a Pope who fell into occult (secret)
heresy would also cease to be Pope which, as we saw earlier, is not only
contrary to the teaching of Bellarmime (the Sedevacantists’ favorite
theologian), but, as Bellarmine himself said, also contrary to “all the
theologians” he cited in his book De
Ecclesia" (True or False Pope?)
It
is evident that when we are referring to the internal sin of heresy alone
as “not severing the external bonds of unity,” we are referring to occult
heresy (since public and notorious heresy does sever the external bond). And we added the word “alone” at least 15
times in that chapter so our meaning would be clear. Again, this shows that Fr.
Cekada is either clueless, or is deliberately attempting to poison his audience
by creating a smoke screen of nonsensical distinctions because he has no real
arguments to offer.
Anyone
who has read the book would know that when we use the words internal heresy alone, we are equating it with occult heresy (not addressing the modes of expression). And why did we
equate the sin of heresy alone with
occult heresy? Because the sin of heresy
alone IS occult heresy. So,
this entire section of Cekada’s video is nothing but a red-herring to confuse
and deceive those who have not read the book.
There’s much more we could say about this section of his video, but it would
be superfluous since it is not relevant to the main issue.
We should also
note that some Sedevacantists explicitly
argue that an occult heretic (one who is guilty of the internal sin of heresy alone)
cannot hold office, since they believe they are not members of the Church. For
example, the Sedevacantist, Richard Ibranyi, teaches the following:
"Beware
of notorious heretics, such as Cajetan and Robert Bellarmine, who…deny the
basic dogma that an occult formal heretic is not a member
of the Catholic Church and not Catholic. They hold the formal heresy,
introduced by the scholastics, that an occult
formal heretic is a member of the Catholic Church and Catholic. Hence they
believe that an occult formal heretic
can hold an office because they heretically believe he is a member of the
Catholic Church and Catholic."[4]
So, as we can
see, some Sedevacantists do publicly hold that even an occult heretic cannot be
Pope, without disguising their position with ambiguity, as does Fr. Cekada.
Intentional
Deception?
What we will
show in a moment is that a normal person who reads Fr. Cekada’s writings will
conclude that it is the internal sin of heresy alone (i.e., occult heresy, not public heresy) that causes the loss of office, or prevents a
person from validly acquiring the papal office. No doubt, he uses the term “public sin” and “public heretic,”
but, as we will show, his explanation
does not fit the term. In fact, his explanation is so ambiguous that it is difficult to believe it is
not intentional.
Why would it be
intentional? Because if he can convince his readers that a man who commits the sin
of heresy (the “moral” offense against “divine law”) cannot become Pope, or
cannot remain Pope, it makes it very easy for him to lead Traditional Catholics
into his sect, since most Traditional Catholics do believe the recent Popes
have been guilty of the sin of heresy and hence lost the Faith. If Cekada can
lead them to believe that “a heretic cannot be Pope” (without making any of the
necessary theological distinctions), then, if they personally believe the Pope
has fallen into heresy, they will conclude he is not the Pope. This is
precisely how Cekada ensnares many of his unsuspecting victims and leads them
out of the Church.
But by using
the terms “public sin” or “public
heresy” it allows him an escape route when confronted by someone who does know
the necessary distinctions, and seeks to pin him down with them.
Penetrating
Cekada’s Crafty Ambiguity
on “Public Heresy”
on “Public Heresy”
Now, let’s get
to the heart of Fr. Cekada’s error. If one studies his ambiguous position and
tries to make sense of it, he will be forced to conclude that what he calls a
“public sin of heresy” is not truly a public sin of heresy at all, but rather external acts (known to many people) that lead others to
believe that the internal sin was committed.
We can even see this in the video, when he says “you draw the logical
conclusion from their behavior and you act on it” (18:99-19:05). But what if
the “logical conclusion” is drawn from “behavior” that is not strictly
heretical, but only leads a person to believe the internal sin was
committed? Is this what Cekada calls a
“public sin of heresy”? Yes, indeed. That is precisely what Cekada erroneously calls
a “public sin of heresy.”
The
problem is that for heresy to be a “public sin,” not only does the public error
itself have to be qualified as heresy (rather than a lesser error), but pertinacity (the willful, conscious
departure from the Church as the rule of faith) must also be public. Also note that there is a
difference between a public sin against the Faith and a public sin of heresy. Heresy is a sin against the faith, but not
all sins against the faith are heresy. Public sins against faith which are
not heresy, as such, neither prevent a man from becoming Pope, nor do they
cause a Pope to lose his office. This explains why Pope Marcellinus was not
considered to have fallen from the pontificate when he offered incense to the
false “god” Jupiter, which was certainly a public sin against the Faith (but
not a public sin of heresy).
Before we delve
deeper into Fr. Cekada’s errors, let us defines our terms.
Material
and Formal Heresy
Material Heresy: The material (or objective) aspect of heresy is a doctrine,
contained in the source of revelation (Scripture or Tradition), which has been
infallibly proposed for belief by the Church, either by a solemn decree or by
the force of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. It is
important to note that not all errors are qualified as heresy. The reason
this is important is because it is common today for people to use the word
“heresy” in abroad sense to refer to any doctrinal error that undermines or
endangers the faith, but, strictly speaking, heresy is a narrow term that only
applies to revealed truths that have been infallibly proposed by the Church.
Formal Heresy: The formal (or subjective) aspect of heresy is pertinacity,
which is the willful and conscious rejection of a doctrine that has been
infallibly proposed by the Church to be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith,
or the rejection of the Church as the infallible rule of faith by public
profession (as we find, for example, with the Sedevacantists themselves, who publicly
reject the Church). The sin of
heresy (whether public or occult) requires pertinacity, as the Catechism of
Trent explains:
"A
person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in
matters of faith [material aspect]; but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the
Church, maintains an impious opinion
with pertinaticy [formal aspect]."[5]
Billuart elaborates further:
"Pertinacity, which is the characteristic note of heresy,
is an obstinate adhesion to one’s
own opinion, in opposition to [a truth of] faith that is sufficiently
known. The heretic gainsays the faith,
not out of ignorance, nor moved by any sufficient reason, but knowingly and
willingly, quite simply from a movement of bad will… That this sort of
pertinacity is necessary for heresy is evident from the term itself, which, as
we have said already, signifies the act of choosing. Just as faith requires the pious motion of
the will, which inclines the intellect to assent to truth that is certain but
dimly revealed, so heresy, which is
opposed to faith, requires a perverse inclination of the will, by which one
pertinaciously disbelieves a truth proposed by the Church."
Both
Matter and Form Can Be Public or Occult
Now, when
considered from the perspective of the individual (the subject), both the
material aspect of heresy (which exists in the intellect) and the formal aspect
of heresy (which exists in the will) can be public or occult. If a person
adheres to a heretical proposition internally, or expresses it privately to
only a few, the material aspect of the heresy is occult (materialiter occultum). If a person publicly professes a heretical
doctrine, and it is widely known or was done under circumstances by which it can
be widely known, the heretical matter
would be public.
The form of
heresy (pertinacity) can also be public or occult. If one knowingly and
willfully denies a dogma interiorly (and hence commits a mortal sin of heresy,
thereby losing all the supernatural virtues), yet does so without providing
sufficient external evidence of a willful denial, pertinacity would be formally
occult (formaliter occultum). If he
were to provide sufficient evidence of pertinacity in the external forum –
e.g., by publicly admitting that he knowingly and willfully rejects an article
of Faith, or by openly leaving the Church, thereby publicly rejecting it as the
rule of faith - the formal aspect of heresy would be public.
A person who
merely professes a heretical doctrine (the matter) – and even if it is known to
many people - is not, for that fact alone, a heretic, much less a public
heretic, as Fr. Berry explains:
"A
heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i.e., a baptized person, who holds a
doctrine contrary to a revealed truth; but this definition is inaccurate, since
it would make heretics of a large portion of the faithful. A doctrine contrary
to a revealed truth is usually stigmatized as heretical, but a person who professes an heretical doctrine is not necessarily
a heretic. Heresy, from the Greek hairesis,
signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in
matters of faith, thereby rejecting the
authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the truths
of revelation. (…) A person who submits to the authority of the Church and
wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic, even though he profess heretical doctrines through ignorance
of what the Church really teaches; he implicitly accepts the true doctrine in
his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches.”[6]
What makes one a formal heretic is refusing to
submit to the Church it as the rule of faith, not merely by professing a
heretical doctrine.
The
“Public Sin of Heresy” Means
Pertinacity is also Public (externalized to many)
Pertinacity is also Public (externalized to many)
Because formal
heresy requires pertinacity, and because pertinacity can be public for occult,
it follows that for someone to be guilty of the public sin of heresy (i.e., public formal heresy), their pertinacity, and hence
culpability, would also have to be public.
If only the material aspect was public (i.e., publicly professing a heretical
doctrine), it would not constitute the public sin of heresy. One who professes a heretical doctrine to many is not, for that reason alone, a public formal heretic. We provide many examples in True or False Pope? of prelates who publicly professed heretical
doctrines (e.g., Archbishop Darboy, Michel de Bay), yet were considered by
their contemporaries (including Popes and Doctors of the Church) to be priests
and/or bishops in good standing, precisely because their pertinacity was not public
(it was not proven in the external forum).
For example, in his book The
History of Heresies, and Their Refutation, St. Alphonsus (a saint and
Doctor of the Church) explained that Erasmus of Rotterdam “called the
Invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints idolatry; condemned Monasteries,
ridiculed the Religious…and condemned their vows and rules.” He “was opposed to
the Celibacy of the Clergy, and turned into mockery Papal Indulgences, relics
of Saints, feasts and fasts, auricular Confession.” As a prelude to Luther,
Erasmus taught that “by Faith alone man is justified,” and he even “threw doubt
on the authority of the Scripture and Councils.” In one of his published books,
Erasmus even dared to say it is “rash to
call the Holy Ghost God.” Nevertheless, after listing all of the above public errors and heresies of
Erasmus, St. Alphonsus ends by saying: “We may conclude with Bernini, that he
died with the character of an unsound Catholic, but not a heretic, as he
submitted his writings to the judgment of the Church.”
Because there
was no evidence of pertinacity, Erasmus was not
considered a “public heretic,” even though it would have been very easy
to “logically conclude,” based on his own writings, that he had fallen into the
internal sin of heresy and hence lost the Faith. You can only imagine what “logical
conclusion” Cekada and his colleagues would have reached if one of the recent
Popes taught what Erasmus did.
Now, for
someone to be guilty of the moral offense of heresy (a sin against
divine law), it would not require
that pertinacity be public, since
even an occult (non-public) sin of heresy is contrary to divine law, just as an
occult sin of lust is contrary to divine law.
In other words,
a person who is guilty of the moral offense of heresy, is not
necessarily guilty of the “public
sin” of heresy – even if he publicly
professes a truly heretical doctrine (as opposed to a lesser error), since
doing so would only constitute the material
aspect of heresy, and not the formal
element of pertinacity, which remains occult. To be guilty of the “public sin” (as Cekada
calls it), he would have to manifest his pertinacity (his guilt) by publicly rejecting the Church as the
rule of faith, whether on a single dogma or in
toto.
Needless to
say, none of the recent Popes have done this.
Consequently, they have not been guilty of the public sin of heresy, even though they may have been
guilty of the moral offense of heresy, and given many reasons to suspect
the interior sin was committed.
Fr.
Cekada’s Main Error = The Public Sin of Heresy
Does Not Require Public Pertinacity
Does Not Require Public Pertinacity
As we have
noted already, in his articles Fr. Cekada often uses the term “public heresy”
and “public sin” when discussing his position, but he neither defines the terms,
nor does he show how the recent Popes meet his personal definition. He simply declares them public heretics ("public formal heretics," as he did on his video) on
his own authority, and then quotes canonists who teach that a public heretic cannot
be Pope.
He also gives
occasional lip service to the required element of pertinacity, but nothing in
his explanation suggests that it must be public.
If you read his writings, what you will conclude is that he is describing, not
the public sin of heresy (even though he uses the term), but rather the moral
offense of heresy against divine law, which does not require public
pertinacity. We will provide just one example, taken from an article that
Cekada mentioned in his recent video, namely, Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope:
"Heresy:
The Sin vs. the Crime
"SOME
WRITERS have raised the following objection: No one can become a true heretic
unless Church authority first warns or admonishes him that he is rejecting a
dogma. Only after that does he have the “pertinacity” (stubbornness in false
belief) required for heresy. No one issued warnings to the post-Conciliar popes
about their errors, so they are not pertinacious. Thus they cannot be true
heretics.
"This
argument confuses a distinction that canonists make between two aspects of
heresy:
(1)
Moral: Heresy as a sin
(peccatum) against divine law.
(2)
Canonical: Heresy as a crime (delictum) against canon law.
"The
moral/canonical distinction
is easy to grasp by applying it to abortion. There are two aspects under which
we can consider abortion:
(1)
Moral: Sin against the 5th
Commandment that results in the loss of sanctifying grace. [Note: even the hidden sin of abortion
results in the loss of sanctifying grace – Siscoe/Salza]
(2)
Canonical: Crime against canon 2350.1 of the Code of Canon Law that results in
automatic excommunication.
"In
the case of heresy, warnings only come into play for the canonical crime of
heresy. These are not required as a condition for committing the sin of heresy against the divine law. The canonist Michel
draws the clear distinction for us:
“Pertinacity
does not of necessity include long obstinacy by the heretic and warnings from
the Church. A condition for the sin of heresy is one thing; a condition for the
canonical crime of heresy, punishable by canon laws, is another.” (Michel,
“Hérésie,” in DTC 6:2222)
"It
is a pope’s public sin of
heresy in this sense that strips
him of Christ’s authority (emphases added)."
So notice,
while Fr. Cekada uses the term
“public sin,” his explanation does
not require that pertinacity be
public – only that the person be guilty of the “moral” offense, that is,
“the sin of heresy against divine law” (using his words verbatim). And the
example he uses is abortion, which “results in the loss of sanctifying grace.” But
a loss of grace would take place even if the abortion is done in secret, demonstrating that when Cekada uses
the term “public” sin, he is really referring to “moral” offense. And the
quotation he cited from Michel about pertinacity also in no way indicates that
it would have to be public, but only a “sin of heresy” which applies equally to
an occult sin of heresy. Cekada then follows up his explanation by saying he is
referring to a “public sin of heresy in this sense,” that is, in the sense
that heresy is a “sin” and “moral” offense which causes the “loss of grace.” He
then claims that such a sin (i.e., a moral offense) strips a Pope of Christ’s
authority, even though nothing in his explanation requires that the necessary element of pertinacity be public,
and everything in his explanation would apply equally to a private sin. One
finds this sort of misleading deception throughout Fr. Cekada’s writings.
Thus, if one
reads Cekada’s writings carefully, the conclusion they will draw is that it is
indeed and ultimately the internal sin of heresy (a “moral” offense”
against “divine law”) that causes the loss of office. What is “public” are the external
actions – “the behavior” to use the wording of his recent video – which leads
an observer to conclude that the internal sin has been committed (e.g.,
offering incense to the false god Jupiter), even though the external actions
are not a “public sin of heresy,” as such, since there is no public pertinacity.
This most
critical distinction between public pertinacity (which is required for the
“public sin” of heresy), and external actions which may lead one to believe the
“sin” of heresy has been committed, underscores Fr. Cekada’s fundamental error.
So, no, Fr. Cekada, we have not mischaracterized your position. It’s as plain
as day. What you call “public heresy,”
is nothing but occult formal heresy that is “discerned” by an act of private judgment.
And that means the entire foundation
upon which you, Fr. Cekada, have erected your Sedevacantist position is “Dead
on Arrival,” if we may use your own words.
Example of an Internal Sin Discerned by Public Acts
Let us further illustrate
the difference between an internal sin, which is discerned by public
actions, as opposed to a true public sin, with an example used by Our
Lord Himself. In the Sermon on the Mount, Our Lord said “whosoever shall look
on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in
his heart.” Now, it may be possible for one to conclude that a man has
“committed adultery in his heart” (i.e., lusting after a women) by observing
his external acts (how he is looking at her, etc.); but there is an evident
difference between discerning that
one has committed the internal sin of an impure thought (adultery in the
heart), and one who has committed the public sin of adultery (such as
the woman in the Gospels who was caught in the act). The former is an internal
sin - a moral offense against divine law - while the latter is the public
act itself. The difference is even found in civil law, since in some states
the public act of adultery is forbidden (it is a felony in Michigan and
Wisconsin), while the internal sin is not, even if one believes it has
occurred based on the observance of external actions.
Now, in light
of this distinction, let us see how Fr. Cekada’s most fervent disciple, Mario
Derksen, explains their position, which further proves our case.
Mario
Derksen Explains Fr. Cekada’s Error
on “Public Sin” to a Tee
on “Public Sin” to a Tee
 |
| Mario Derksen of NovusOrdoWatch, Cekada's disciple |
“From the
very start, Salza reduces the issue of sedevacantism to a problem of alleged public heresy in individual
claimants to the papacy, as though the whole issue were one of certain
individuals having publicly defected from the Faith, and nothing more than
that. (Sedevacantism does not just assert that certain individual claimants to
the papacy are charlatans, but that the entire Novus Ordo Church as an
institution is a false church and not the Mystical Body of Christ.)
"Conceding that heresy, by divine
law, results in automatic self-expulsion from the Catholic Church, Salza asks:
‘How does one determine whether a Cardinal was a heretic prior to his election
to the papacy? How does one know whether self-expulsion for pre-election heresy
has occurred?’ (John Salza, “The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical
Law,” p. 1).
"In order to answer this question
properly, Salza would now have to draw a distinction between heresy as a crime
against the law of the Church on the one hand, and heresy as a sin, that is,
heresy as a crime against divine law, on the other. This distinction is
absolutely essential, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, he
misses it, is one of the reasons why his conclusion against sedevacantism is
erroneous. (He does concede a distinction between the two but
not sufficiently so and not clearly enough, as will become apparent in what
follows.)
"Taking his clue from the fact that heresy as a crime against
church law does not result in immediate excommunication, even if the individual
is certainly a true and proper heretic (i.e., a baptized person who willfully
and against better knowledge denies or doubts a dogma of the Catholic Church), it should have occurred to Salza that
the same is not true for heresy as a crime against divine law, because the very sin of heresy is what
results in loss of membership in the Church, and hence the membership is
lost as soon as the sin is committed, at least inasmuch as this sin is publicly divulged and not secret.
…
"While
canon law can help us understand divine law, it is crucial not to mix the two
or to reduce divine law to canon law. This is easily apparent when we consider, for example, that there is no ecclesiastical law against entertaining impure thoughts. Are
we, then, to conclude that it is not an offense against divine law? Are we to conclude that unless there be an
ecclesiastical trial, no one can know if someone has entertained such thoughts?
What if the person in question makes this fact manifest by his actions?" (Derksen)
We
could not have explained Cekada’s (and Derksen’s) erroneous methodology any
better. Notice that Derksen refers, not to the public sin of adultery,
but to an interior sin (“impure thoughts”), which are “manifest by his
actions” (“he looked at her with lust in his eyes,” etc.) which are observed
externally.
So, the
explanation of Derksen confirms
precisely what we have said about Fr. Cekada’s thesis, namely, that one who
studies Cekada’s writings (as Derksen has) will be led to believe that it is
the internal sin of heresy (discerned from external acts) that
causes the loss of office, and not the public act itself (i.e., openly
leaving the Church, or publicly admitting to knowingly reject an article of
faith, neither of which the Vatican II Popes have done). The problem is that
the explanation of both Cekada and Derksen only constitute occult heresy (as we will show in a moment), which even Fr. Cekada admits does not prevent a man from being validly
elected Pope!
External
Actions Which Do Not Constitute Public Heresy
There are many external
actions that a cleric can do, which would lead a normal person to believe
he was guilty of the internal sin of heresy, but which only renders him suspect
of heresy (which does not cause him to lose his office - even if he WERE guilty of the sin of heresy).
We have an entire chapter in True or
False Pope? that discusses such acts, which include: 1) propagating
heretical doctrines, 2) externally professing the error of heretics, 3)
favoring heretics “because of their heresy,” 4) defending heretics for the
sake of heresy,, 4) participating in false worship with non-Catholics, 5)
committing sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament, 6) taking part in satanic
black magic, or 7) formally joining anti-Catholic secret society. Each of these acts, which would lead many
people to believe that the internal sin of heresy had been committed, and which
may even constitute sins against the
Faith externally, only renders the person suspect of heresy. And one
who is suspect of heresy is not considered a “public heretic,” nor is he
prevented from being elected Pope or retaining the papal office
More Cekada Deception:
He Craftily Ignores “Pertinacity” While Quoting
a Half Sentence of Billot, Out of Context
He Craftily Ignores “Pertinacity” While Quoting
a Half Sentence of Billot, Out of Context
Let us preface this section by noting that a notorious
crime differs from a public crime by the degree of inexcusability of
the act. Two people can be guilty of a public crime, yet one can be more
evidently guilty– more inexcusable – than the other. This is the essential
difference between public and notorious crime, as Fr. Augustine explains:
"A
crime is notorious notorietate facti [notorius by fact] when it is
publicly known and has been committed under such circumstances that it cannot
be concealed by any artifice or be excused by any legal assumption or
circumstantial evidence. … It is this element of inexcusability or of knowledge
of the criminal character of the deed that appears to distinguish a public from
a notorious crime. For the text manifestly lays stress on divulgation with
regard to public crimes, and emphasizes the criminal
character as known and inexcusable [for a notorious crime]."
Cardinal Billot,
along with many other theologians, teaches that a Pope who became a notorious heretic – that is, one whose
pertinacity is widely known, and “cannot be concealed by any artifice or be
excused by any legal assumption or circumstantial evidence” – will fall from
the pontificate. You would never know that, however, by reading Fr. Cekada’s
presentation of Billot’s teaching, because Cekada
only provides half-sentences from Billot in order to conceal what the esteemed
theologian actually taught. Why does Cekada only cite a half sentence? Because
it is the only way he could defend his ambiguous position of loss of office due
to the “moral offense” of heresy (by
violating “divine law”).
We will begin
by citing the article in which Cekada quotes Billot. Next we will show what
Billot really taught. Then we will
allow Billot to explain the difference between notorious heresy and occult
heresy. We begin with Cekada’s article:
"Like
many who have written against sedevacantism, one fundamental flaw runs through
Mr. Sparks’ article: he seems utterly unaware of the distinction between human
ecclesiastical (canon) law and divine law, and how this distinction applies to
the case of a heretical pope.
"Heresy
is both a crime (delictum) against canon law and a sin (peccatum) against
divine law. The material Mr. Sparks quotes deals with heresy as a delictum
and with the ecclesiastical censure (excommunication) that the heretic incurs.
This is mostly irrelevant to the case of a heretical pope. Because he is the
supreme legislator and therefore not subject to canon law, a pope cannot commit
a true delictum of heresy or incur an excommunication. He is subject only to
the divine law. It is by violating the divine
law through the sin (peccatum) of heresy that a heretical pope loses
his authority — “having become an unbeliever [factus infidelis],” as Cardinal
Billot says, “he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church."
(De Ecclesia, 5th ed. [1927] 632.)
Notice, once
again, that nothing in Cekada’s explanation
implies that the “sin of heresy” would have to be public (with public
pertinacity). While he does use the term
“public sin” in the article, as with the other articles he’s written, his explanation does not fit the term.
And the
“authority” Cekada cites for his position is a half of a sentence from Cardinal Billot. The carefully selected half-sentence
states that a Pope would lose his office by becoming an “unbeliever,” which,
again, does not require public pertinacity (and that’s because Cekada’s theory
does not require public pertinacity). But if we read the entire sentence from
Billot, we will see what the Cardinal is really referring to:
"Given,
therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without
hesitation that he would by that very fact [i.e., by becoming a notorious
heretic] lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an
unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church."
Notice, the
Cardinal is not merely speaking of the “sin” of heresy, as Fr. Cekada would
have his readers believe. Rather, he is referring to a Pope who became a notorious
heretic, which requires public
pertinacity (which constitutes the crime
of heresy). The Cardinal is simply repeating what all the other theologians
have taught, namely, that the public crime (not
the sin) of heresy “casts one outside the body of the Church.” But in order for
one to be guilty of the crime of heresy, his pertinacity must be public. So, the
clever and crafty Fr. Cekada has been caught with his proverbial pants down,
once again.
And unlike Fr.
Cekada, who hides behind ambiguity and even outright deception, Cardinal Billot
explains what he means by notorious heresy. He also defines occult
heresy. And it is an explanation that Fr. Cekada will never reveal to
his readers. And neither will any other Sedevacantist apologist. Read on.
One Who Has Sinned Against the Faith
Externally
May Be Only an Occult Heretic, or Not a
May Be Only an Occult Heretic, or Not a
Heretic
At All
The Sedevacantists
have translated portions of Cardinal Billot’s writings, but they have purposely avoided translating his
explanation of notorious heresy and occult heresy, since his explanation
of these terms completely eviscerates their entire thesis. And it is not as
though they are unaware of what the Cardinal wrote. We say that because Sedevacantist
apologist John Daly published a now well-known quotation of Billot, which is found
precisely one paragraph before Billot’s explanation of notorious vs. occult
heresy (which we provide below). Why did Mr. Daly fail to translate the next
paragraph? Most likely for the same reason that he “forgot” to quote the second
half of a sentence by Pius IX’s Tuas
Libenter in the article he wrote claiming that Vatican II violated the
Church’s infallibility[7]
– namely, because the material he omitted completely destroys his thesis. Unfortunately,
such dishonest tactics are common-place amongst the Sedevacantist apologists,
as we saw above with the half-sentence hatchet job that Cekada applied to
Billot’s quotation.
As we will see
below, in the very next paragraph (which Daly omitted), Cardinal Billot
explains that one who manifests his heresy by external signs, and who may even
be guilty of the sin of heresy (e.g.,
by interiorly denying a dogma of the faith) – is still a member of the Church, unless and until he publicly
renounces the Church as the rule of Faith. If such a person does not depart
from the infallible rule of the Church’s Magisterium by a public profession, he is only considered an occult heretic and, if he’s a cleric,
does not lose his jurisdiction. You read that correctly.
Now, let’s first
read Cardinal Billot’s explanation of notorious vs. occult heresy. When reading
the following, keep in mind that Cekada concedes that a Pope who is an occult
heretic remains Pope. We will quote
the Cardinal at length and intersperse our comments. The following is from his classic
book, De Ecclesia Christi (1927):
 |
| Cardinal Billot |
"We
must establish, in the first place, the proper sense of the term 'heresy.' According
to the etymology of the term and its actual usage, which has been the same
throughout all of tradition, that man is properly called a heretic who, after
embracing Christianity in the sacrament of baptism, does not accept from the
magisterium of the Church the rule of what is to be believed, but takes from
somewhere else the norm for his beliefs in matters of faith and concerning the
teaching of Christ. He might follow other religious teaching authorities, or he
might adhere to the principle of free examination, professing the complete
independence of reason; or, finally, he might disbelieve only one of the
articles that are proposed by the Church as dogmas of faith.
"Note,
then, the difference between infidelity and heresy. [1] First of all, the
general sin of infidelity can exist in any man having the use of reason, while
heresy is proper to one who has received the sacrament of faith, that is, the
baptismal character. [2] Moreover, for
general infidelity it is enough for someone to disbelieve truths revealed by God
and sufficiently proposed to him as such. 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. [3] Hence,
general infidelity prescinds from any special condition in its opposition to
divine faith, while heresy is opposed to this same faith in precisely the way
that it ought to be in a Christian: under the rule, and in dependence upon that
authority to which it belongs to govern, in the place of God, the society of
believers.
Formal and Material Heretics
"Now,
heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is
sufficiently known. Material heretics
are those who, affected by invincible ignorance concerning the Church herself,
choose in good faith another rule to determine what they are to believe. The heresy of material heretics is not
imputed as a sin; on the contrary, it is possible for them to have even that
supernatural faith which is the commencement and root of all justification;
for, they might believe all the principal articles explicitly, and believe the
others, not explicitly, but implicitly, by the disposition of their minds, and
the good intention they have of believing all truths whatsoever are
sufficiently proposed to them as revealed by God. Consequently, they can still belong in desire
to the body of the Church and meet the other conditions necessary for
salvation.
"Nevertheless,
because we are concerned with real incorporation into the visible Church of
Christ, our thesis does not distinguish between formal and material
heretics—understanding the latter according to the notion of material heresy
that we have just explained, which alone is the proper and genuine sense of the
term. For, if by “material heretic” you understand one who professes
dependence upon the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith, but denies
something defined by the Church because he is ignorant of the fact that it was
defined, or holds an opinion contrary to Catholic teaching because he
mistakenly thinks that it is taught by the Church, then it would be utterly
absurd to put material heretics outside the body of the true Church; but this would
also be to distort completely the true meaning of the word. For, a sin is called “material” only when all
the elements of that sin are present materially, but without advertence or
deliberate choice. Now, heresy by its
nature requires departure from the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium. In the
case cited, there is no departure; there is only an error of fact about what
the rule dictates. Such an error cannot
be heresy, even materially so."
COMMENT: Note that a Catholic (i.e., a person that accepts
the Church as the rule of faith), who publicly professes a material heresy, is
not considered a material heretic (he is not a heretic at all). In simple
terms, a material heretic is a baptized non-Catholic. This is important because
theologians who use the term material heretic correctly, also correctly note
that material heretics are not true members of the Church, even if they are in
good faith. Some Sedevacantists who have read these quotations have used them
to argue that a Catholic who professes material heresy is not a member of the
Church, since they erroneously believe a Catholic who professes material heresy
is “material heretic,” when, in reality, he would only be a Catholic in
material error.
 |
| Fr. Paul Kramer |
"…we
will direct our attention to another division.
Heretics are divided into occult
and notorious. Occult heretics are, in the first place, those who by a
purely internal act disbelieve dogmas of faith proposed by the Church, and after that, those who do indeed manifest their heresy by external signs, but
not by a public profession [i.e., renunciation of the Magisterium as the rule
of faith]. Among them, you will easily understand that many men of our times fall into the
latter category—those, namely, who either doubt or positively disbelieve
matters of faith, and do not disguise the state of their mind in the private
affairs of life, but who have never expressly renounced the faith of the
Church, and, when they are asked categorically about their religion, declare
of their own accord that they are Catholics." [8]
COMMENT: Here we see that those who “manifest their heresy by external signs, but not by a public profession,” are only
considered occult heretics. Did you
catch that, Fr. Cekada? How about you, Mario Derksen? How about you, Fr.
Kramer? In other words, if a person merely commits external actions that
lead one to believe the person has committed the sin of heresy (remember
Derksen’s earlier explanation about impure thoughts), they are not
thereby considered a public or notorious heretic, but only an occult heretic.
But it gets even
worse for the Sedevacantists. The Cardinal continues by confirming that occult
heretics – even those who have sinned against the faith externally, remain members of the Church. He wrote:
“…only the notorious are excluded [from the
Church], and not the occult—among whom we must also number (as it seems to us)
those who, sinning against the faith even externally, have never
departed from the rule of the Church’s magisterium by a public profession.”
Could Cardinal
Billot’s teaching be more at odds with the Sedevacantist thesis? Could a more
devastating refutation of Fr. Cekada’s theory from one of the greatest
theologians of the twentieth century be imagined? Notice that the person may not
only “manifest their heresy by external signs,” but even “sin against the
faith externally,” yet only be considered an occult heretic, since none of
this would sufficiently prove pertinacity
in the external forum. For example, all those acts which render a man
“suspect of heresy” (engaging in false worship, propagating heretical
doctrines, externally professing the error of heretics, favoring heretics
“because of their heresy,”) may be objective sins against the Faith externally,
but do not constitute the “public sin” of heresy.
 |
| Infamous 1986 Assisi "Prayer Meeting" |
And to be clear, when Billot speaks of
those who depart “from the rule of the Church’s magisterium by public
profession,” he means those who openly
profess that they do not accept the Church as the rule of faith, or openly
profess to knowingly reject a dogma defined by the Church. This is most
certainly the case since, as we just saw, Billot maintains that one can sin
externally against the Faith itself, and not
be a “public heretic.” He does not mean one who merely “publicly professes” a
heretical doctrine, even to millions of people, since this is only the matter
of heresy. He clarified this point a few paragraphs later when he wrote: “Notorious
heretics are those who by their own
profession do not follow the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium.” (notorii haeretici ii sunt qui professione
sua non sequuntur regulam ecclesiastici magisterii).
Even the
Sedevacantist apologist, John Daly (another one of Derksen’s masters) admits
that publicly professing heresy (not a lesser error) does not prove that the
rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium has been rejected: He wrote:
“A heretic is a baptised Christian who does not
accept the Catholic rule of faith, i.e. who rejects the Church's authority in
forming his religious beliefs. Whenever anyone rejects the Church's rule of
faith, he is canonically presumed to do so culpably. But the mere denial of
a dogma does not always establish that the Catholic rule of faith is being
rejected.”[9]
Clearly, none of
the Vatican II Popes have publicly professed that they do not follow “the rule
of the ecclesiastical Magisterium” (either before or after their elections),
and if “asked categorically about their religion, [they would] declare of their
own accord that they are Catholics.” In fact, even the dogmatic Sedevacantist,
Richard Ibranyi, admitted this very point about John Paul II. He wrote:
"John Paul II does not believe he
is teaching contrary to Church dogma, at least it cannot be proven that he
believes he is. JP2 not only verbally professes to be Catholic, he also verbally submits to the Catholic Church and the papacy."[10]
The same is true
with Pope Francis. In fact, Pope Francis explicitly denied that he rejects what
the Church teaches when he was accused of being a Communist, or having
Communist leanings. In response, he said:
"I’m sure that I haven’t said
anything more than what’s written in the social doctrine of the Church...I am the one following the Church…And
in this it seems that I’m not wrong. I
believe that I never said a thing that wasn’t the social doctrine of the
Church. Things can be explained, possibly an explanation gave an impression
of being a little ‘to the left,’ but it would be an error of explanation…all of
this, is the social doctrine of the Church."[11]
 |
| Which one has not PUBLICLY rejected the Church's Magisterium? |
Cardinal Billot’s Teaching on Occult
Heresy
Further Affirms the Error of Fr. Cekada’s Position
Further Affirms the Error of Fr. Cekada’s Position
Cardinal Billot
explains that those occult heretics, whose externally
heretical manifestations do not suffice for notoriety (even if they were
true external sins against the Faith), remain members of the Church. He wrote:
"That
occult heretics are still in the Church can be shown, in the first place, by an
argument drawn from the general principle that was declared above. For, baptism of its very nature gathers men
into the visible body of the Catholic Church; this effect is always joined to
it, unless there be something in the recipient of baptism that prevents
it—something incompatible with the social bond of ecclesiastical unity. Moreover, the social bond, because it is
social, is of it very nature external and manifest. As
long, therefore, as heresy is not openly professed, but stays within the mind, or
is confined to manifestations that do not suffice for notoriety (vel iis continetur manifestationibus quae ad
notorietatem non sufficient), it by no means prevents one from being joined
to the visible structure of the Church; and by this fact the baptismal
character (by which we are made to be of the body of the Church) necessarily
continues to have its effect."
We have already
seen that none of the recent Popes have been notorious heretics either before
or after their elections; therefore, they have remained members of the visible
structure of the Church, and hence were not prevented from becoming, and remaining,
true and valid Popes. And we should also point out that the Cardinal is not referring to how many people know about the "manifestations" (only a few or a large number) but whether or not the manifestations qualify as notoriously heretical.
The Case of the Jansenists
also Disproves Sedevacantism
In his
discussion of occult vs. notorious heresy, Cardinal Billot refuted the
objection that even a notorious heretic would remain a true member of the
Church. He formulated the objection by addressing the contention that the Jansenists
were notorious heretics since they openly
rejected the papal bull that condemned Jansen’s errors and heresies, yet
they remained members of the Church. Therefore, the objection maintains, notorious
heretics can remain true members of the Church.
Billot refuted to
this objection by arguing that the Jansenists did not truly qualify as
notorious heretics. What is important about his reply to the objection is that what
the Cardinal used as an excuse for “notorious heresy” for the Jansenists, applies
equally to the Modernist Popes and bishops of our day. Here is the objection
and the Cardinal’s answer:
"Objection: At the time of
the Jansenist heresy, there were many bishops who openly appealed against the
Bull Unigenitus [the papal bull of Clement XI that condemned over 100 Jansenist
propositions] and other papal Constitutions, whether preceding or following,
that had been received in the whole Church.
These, therefore, were notorious
heretics. Notwithstanding this, they
were still considered as true bishops having communion with the Apostolic See,
and therefore as true members of the Church.
Therefore it is false to say, even of notorious heresy, that it puts a
man outside the body of the Church.
Answer: I reply that the Jansenists were more
innovative than other heretics in coming up with every kind of subterfuge in
order to evade the anathemas of the Church, so that, by dissembling themselves
in every way, they might diffuse more efficaciously the virus of their
doctrine. There is nothing to wonder at, then, if the heresy of some,
because of the great cunning of their artifices, was not so notorious among
their contemporaries.”
Notice, the
Jansenists were excused from notorious heresy by their craftiness and
subterfuge (i.e., deceit), which is precisely the modus operandi of the “wily Modernists” (as Fr. Fenton called them),
who use ambiguity and double-speak to conceal their errors while at the same
time spreading them throughout the Church. If this tactic, as evil as it is,
excused the Jansenists from notorious heresy, it likewise excuses the Modernist
clerics of our day. And to be clear: the reason it excused them is because the
tactic they used concealed their
pertinacity. Because their pertinacity was hidden (occult), they were, at most, occult heretics (that
is, if they were guilty of the internal sin of heresy), but certainly not
public or notorious heretics, which is why they remained members of the Church
in good standing – just like the Modernists prelates of our day. And it is clear that the acts themselves were public - "they openly appealed against the Bull" - not occult, that is, not externalized only to a small number.
Now, because Fr. Cekada claims that his
true position is that only “public heretics” (not occult heretics) are incapable
of becoming or remaining Popes, he, by his own stated position, has refuted the Sedevacantist thesis.
Cekada can no
longer hide behind his ambiguous argument that the “sin of heresy” is an
obstacle to a man becoming or remaining Pope, an argument that he has used to
deceive countless people for the last 20+ years. There is no way Fr. Cekada can provide
his flock with proof that the
recent Popes have ALL publicly professed
to consciously reject the rule of the Magisterium (which Ibranyi conceded John
Paul II never did). And, as Cekada’s own Sedevacantist colleague, John Daly,
has explained, pertinacity “must be proved,” not presumed based on
external actions, in order for one to be considered a heretic according to the Church’s own law. Daly says:
“The canonists have defined pertinacity as recognition or awareness of the conflict between one’s belief and that of the Church. As such, pertinacity is essential to the canonical delict of heresy; it is part of the matter or (technically) corpus delicti of heresy. Hence it must be proved before anyone can be considered a heretic, and Canon 2200/2 with its presumption of culpability does not help to prove it…”[12]
Because Fr. Cekada
cannot prove public pertinacity in the case of the Vatican II Popes before their election (when they were subject to canon law), he is forced to admit that they
were not “public heretics,” and that what he has been calling “public heresy”
all these years, is, in reality, nothing more than occult heresy. In other words, Cekada must now admit that he has
been dead wrong about the validity of the recent Popes. Will he do so? Only
if he values his eternal salvation more than his temporal reputation. Time
will tell.
The Final Straw: Even a Notoriously
Heretical Pope
Remains Pope Until He is Judged by the Church
Remains Pope Until He is Judged by the Church
Finally, since
Sedevacantists like to bounce back and forth between their arguments (as
evidence by Derksen’s recent article on the “loss of office” theory), to prove that
there is absolutely no way out for them, we end our feature with this final and
most devastating point: Even a notoriously
heretical Pope – whose pertinacity is public
– remains the true Pope until he is judged to be a heretic by the Church.
So long as the notoriously heretical Pope is still tolerated by the Church as
Pope, he will continue to be the true Pope with full, pontifical authority. Such
is the explicit teaching of some of the Church’s most distinguished theologians;
and they teach that it is the common
opinion (which we cannot depart from without sin). This final point completes
the funeral services for Sedevacantism. For example, Billuart wrote:
"Others
[other bishops] receive their jurisdiction from the Church, and the Church continues
to give it to them until they are denounced. The pope, however, does not have his
jurisdiction from the Church, but from Christ.
Nowhere has it been declared that Christ would continue to give
jurisdiction to a manifestly heretical Pope, since his heresy could become
known to the Church, and the Church could provide another pastor for
herself. Nevertheless, the more common opinion (sententia communior)
holds that Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and
tranquility of the Church, will continue to give jurisdiction even to a manifestly
heretical pope, until he has been declared a manifest heretic by the
Church."[13]
Two centuries earlier,
Suarez taught the same and again notes that it is the common opinion:
"[I]in
no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his
power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today."[14]
This common
opinion was also confirmed by the brilliant Dominican, John of St. Thomas, who
said a Pope who is manifestly heretical remains Pope until he is declared a
manifest heretic by the Church, and that the contrary “cannot be held”:
"So
long as it has not been declared to us juridically that he is an infidel or
heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to
private judgment, he remains, as far as we are concerned, a member of the
Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It
is only then that he ceases to be Pope as far as we are concerned."[15]
He
further stated, in no uncertain terms that “it cannot be held” that a pope will
lose his office before he is declared a heretic by the Church:
"It cannot be held that the pope,
by the very fact of being a heretic, would cease to be pope antecedently to [before]
a declaration of the Church. … What is truly a matter of debate is whether
the pope, after he is declared by the Church to be a heretic, is deposed ipso facto by Christ the Lord, or if the
Church ought to depose him. In any case,
as long as the Church has not issued a
juridical declaration, he must always be considered the pope…”[16]
As we explain
in our book, and reason itself confirms, this “common teaching” makes perfect
sense. For if Christ were to secretly deprive a heretical Pope of the
pontificate while the Church still tolerated him as Pope and recognized him as
such, we would never know for sure if and when a Pope lost his office for
heresy, or which of the Popes of the past drifted into heresy and secretly lost
their office. And this would paralyze the Church, since any ostensibly
legitimate act of the Pope would be uncertain. With fallen human nature as it
is, such uncertainly would quickly lead to confusion and division – just like
we see in Protestantism, and now Sedevacantism, where everything is based upon
each person’s private judgment. This
explains why John of St. Thomas said “it cannot be held” that Christ will
depose a Pope for heresy before he is declared a heretic by the Church.
The Jesuit
canonist, Fr. Paul Laymann (d. 1635), who was considered “one of the greatest
moralists and canonists of his time,”[17]
further explains that as long as a heretical pope is being tolerated by the
Church, he remains a true Pope:
"It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff,
as a person, might be able to fall into heresy and even a notorious one, by reason of which he would merit to
be deposed by the Church, or rather declared to be separated from her. (…)
Observe, however, that, though we affirm that the Supreme Pontiff, as a private
person, might be able to become a heretic and therefore cease to be a true
member of the Church, (…) still, while
he was tolerated by the Church, and publicly recognized as the universal
pastor, he would really enjoy the pontifical power, in such a way that
all his decrees would have no less force and authority than they would if he were truly faithful. The reason is:
because it is conducive to the governing of the Church, even as, in any other
well-constituted commonwealth, that the acts of a public magistrate are in
force as long as he remains in office and is publicly tolerated."[18]
So there you
have it. We have already challenged the Sedevacantists to produce a quotation
from one of the Church’s traditional theologians who contradicts the foregoing
teaching – that is, a citation saying that Christ will deprive a heretical Pope of his office while he is being
tolerated by the Church - and they have not done so. That is because none
exist.
And anticipating
the objection of those who will try to reject the aforementioned authorities
because they wrote before the First Vatican Council (as if this matters), we
will end with a citation from after Vatican I, which confirms precisely what the above theologians taught. The following is from Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (1893), by the canonist, S.B. Smith:
“Question: Is a Pope who falls into
heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?
"Answer: There are two opinions: one
holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least
be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an ecumenical council or
the College of Cardinals.”[19]
Fr. Smith’s book
was meticulously reviewed by two canonists in Rome who noted several inaccuracies
that required revision, but nothing objectionable was noted about the above citation,
which remained in all of the future editions. What this proves is that, contrary to what the
Sedes claim, nothing in Vatican I prohibits the Church from declaring a Pope guilty
of heresy. Now, whether one holds that the fall from office occurs,
technically, just before the declaratory sentence is issued, immediately after it
is issued, or after the Church performs a separate ministerial act, is fine, since
this is disputed by the theologians and the Church has never settled the matter.
But what is important is that as long as
the Church is tolerating a heretical Pope, and continues to recognize him its head,
he remains a true and valid Pope; and no
Sedevacantist apologist has ever produced an authoritative citation that says
otherwise.
In light of
what we have presented in this article, Fr. Anthony Cekada’s “public sin of
heresy” theory was, from the very beginning, “Dead on Arrival.”
[1] The title of the
article is “Bergoglio’s Got Nothing to Lose, So The Sedevacantist Argument Must
Change,” (May 7, 2014). http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/
bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/.
[2] Ibid.
[3] “When did Nestorius
Lose his Office? A Refutation of John Salza & Robert Siscoe.”
[4] Ibranyi,
“Cajetan’s and Bellarmine’s Heresies on Formal Heretics and Loss of Papal
Office,” originally published December 2012, (revised November 2013).
[5] The Catechism of
the Council of Trent, p. 96.
[6] The Church of
Christ, p. 128.
[7] As we show in True or False Pope?, Mr. Daly quoted half of a sentence (which
seemed, on the surface, to supported the point he was making), but “forgot” to
include the second half, which directly
contradicted the entire thesis of his article (see True of False Pope?, pp. 449-456).
[8] (Latin: Occulti
autem in primis ii dicuntur, qui actu tantum interno discredunt dogmata fidei
ab Ecclesia proposita, tum illi qui signis quidem externis haeresim
manifestant, at non publica professione.
Quos inter, multos nostris diebus versari facile intelliges: dubitantes
scilicet de rebus fidei vel positive dissentientes, suamque animi dispositionem
in privato vitae commercio non dissimulantes, quamvis Ecclesiae fidem nusquam
ex professo abdicaverint, et cum categorice de sua religione interrogantur,
sponte sua sese catholicos declarent.)
[9]
http://www.sedevacantist.com/pertinacity.html
[11] Pope Francis
(September 22, 2015). See Catholic News Agency’s report at http://www.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-transcript-of-popes-in-flight-interview-from-cuba-to-us-78637/.
[12] John S. Daly,
“Pertinacity: Material and Formal Heresy,” 1999. See http://www.sede
vacantist.com/pertinacity.html.
[13]
Charles Rene Billuart, O.P, Summa S. Thomae. (1685-1757), Secunda Secundae, 4th Dissertation: On
the Vices Opposed to Faith, Article I
[14] De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, n. 3.
[15] Cursus Theologici II-II De Auctoritate Summi
Pontificis, Disp. II, Art. III, De
Depositione Papae.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), vol. IX (Fr. Paul Laymann), p. 95.
[19] Smith, Elements of
Ecclesiastical Law, (New York: Benzinger Br., 1893), ninth ed., p.240
