"The Nine vs. Lefebvre" - New Article by Fr. Cekada

<< < (2/26) > >>

StevusMagnus:
Father Cekada,

I'm not a Sede, but I'm interested to get your take on my comments below if you have time:

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/show_single_post?pid=29151387&postcount=8

Thank you.

FatherCekada:
Quote

Are you the one with glasses?


Unfortunately!
Quote

But, as with the SSPX, the Sede approach ultimately leads to the same "substitute magisterium" dilemna.


The distinction (roughly speaking) is this:

Sedes view the teaching authority of the post-Conciliar popes as cut off at the root because of heresy

The sede position is based upon principles enunciated by great canonists and theologians — a pope who becomes a heretic puts himself outside the Church and loses his office (authority). One heresy is all you need.

SSPX claims to "recognize" the teaching authority of the post-Conciliar popes, while at the same time reserving the right to sift each papal pronouncement in order to ascertain whether or not it is in accord with "tradition." So the ultimate locus of teaching authority shifts from the Roman Pontiff to the SSPX Superior General (Abp. Lefebvre, Fr. Schmidberger, Bp. Fellay), who gives papal teachings (and indeed papal laws) a final yea or nay. It's ongoing private judgment — the pope provides the material, and SSPX awards a pass or fail.

Unlike the sede position, this is an ongoing process, as can be seen by reading various SSPX pronouncements over the years. They really do have an ongoing substitute magisterium.

This has no foundation in any theological principles I know of.

Quote

Well there we see who Williamson's authority really is. The Archbishop. So in practice, the Archbishop is Williamson's "Pope" if you will, as he will gladly throw his own convictions out the window and humbly sumit to the Archbishop, but not the Pope.


Alas, true. See the article that Bp. Sanborn wrote on this in 1984

The Crux of the Matter

Tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of the death of Pius XII. At around 11:15 AM EST we will be streaming a Requiem Mass live on the simulcast section of sgg.org

I regret I won't be able to participate very much in this forum — I have a lot of commitments, and I hope you will understand.

StrictCatholicGirl:
Dang! It's Fr. Cekada!

- Lisa
edited to add: Welcome!


newschoolman:
Quote from: FatherCekada

Quote

But, as with the SSPX, the Sede approach ultimately leads to the same "substitute magisterium" dilemna.


The distinction (roughly speaking) is this:

Sedes view the teaching authority of the post-Conciliar popes as cut off at the root because of heresy

The sede position is based upon principles enunciated by great canonists and theologians — a pope who becomes a heretic puts himself outside the Church and loses his office (authority). One heresy is all you need.

SSPX claims to "recognize" the teaching authority of the post-Conciliar popes, while at the same time reserving the right to sift each papal pronouncement in order to ascertain whether or not it is in accord with "tradition." So the ultimate locus of teaching authority shifts from the Roman Pontiff to the SSPX Superior General (Abp. Lefebvre, Fr. Schmidberger, Bp. Fellay), who gives papal teachings (and indeed papal laws) a final yea or nay. It's ongoing private judgment — the pope provides the material, and SSPX awards a pass or fail.

Unlike the sede position, this is an ongoing process, as can be seen by reading various SSPX pronouncements over the years. They really do have an ongoing substitute magisterium.

This has no foundation in any theological principles I know of.
I tend to agree with you on the SSPX dilemna.  However, the Sede approach involves making final determination and judgement of heresy.  Do we truly have the competence to pass such a judgement on the Pope or a council?  That, it seems to me, is how the Sede position suffers from the same kind of weakness or dilemna as the SSPX.  Thoughts?

Caminus:
Quote from: FatherCekada

Quote

Are you the one with glasses?


Unfortunately!
Quote

But, as with the SSPX, the Sede approach ultimately leads to the same "substitute magisterium" dilemna.


The distinction (roughly speaking) is this:

Sedes view the teaching authority of the post-Conciliar popes as cut off at the root because of heresy

The sede position is based upon principles enunciated by great canonists and theologians — a pope who becomes a heretic puts himself outside the Church and loses his office (authority). One heresy is all you need.

SSPX claims to "recognize" the teaching authority of the post-Conciliar popes, while at the same time reserving the right to sift each papal pronouncement in order to ascertain whether or not it is in accord with "tradition." So the ultimate locus of teaching authority shifts from the Roman Pontiff to the SSPX Superior General (Abp. Lefebvre, Fr. Schmidberger, Bp. Fellay), who gives papal teachings (and indeed papal laws) a final yea or nay. It's ongoing private judgment — the pope provides the material, and SSPX awards a pass or fail.

Unlike the sede position, this is an ongoing process, as can be seen by reading various SSPX pronouncements over the years. They really do have an ongoing substitute magisterium.

This has no foundation in any theological principles I know of.

Quote

Well there we see who Williamson's authority really is. The Archbishop. So in practice, the Archbishop is Williamson's "Pope" if you will, as he will gladly throw his own convictions out the window and humbly sumit to the Archbishop, but not the Pope.


Alas, true. See the article that Bp. Sanborn wrote on this in 1984

The Crux of the Matter

Tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of the death of Pius XII. At around 11:15 AM EST we will be streaming a Requiem Mass live on the simulcast section of sgg.org

I regret I won't be able to participate very much in this forum — I have a lot of commitments, and I hope you will understand.

It is theologically untenable that the "entire hierarchy" has fallen from the faith.  The above is also a distinction without a difference since the sedevacantist indeed "sifted" conciliar and papal documents in order to judge that a proposition amounts to canonical heresy.  In order for Father to exonerate himself from this implication, he must necessarily engage in an a priori assumption that the see was vacant and only then can he determine what constitutes the defection from faith. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page