Posted on 09/15/2005 4:25:54 AM PDT by GratianGasparri
THE CARDBOARD POPE… Mr. Ferrara advocates essentially the same position as the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, and countless others: You claim to “recognize” Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI as true popes. At the same time YOU decide which papal teachings, laws, sacramental rites, or commands are good, and which you’ll reject, resist or publicly denounce.
Under this system, a pope no longer possesses the supreme authority to “bind and loose” on earth. A New Jersey lawyer, the Superior General of SSPX, the CEO of the Fatima Industry, the editor of Catholic Family News, or, generally, any traditional Catholic whatsoever, does the final review for him.
The New Mass? A sacrilege, intrinsically evil, or the pope didn’t promulgate it correctly anyway. Ecumenism? No thanks, the pope’s wrong. Consecration of Russia to Immaculate Heart? The pope didn’t do it right. Excommunicated or suspended? Invalid, no matter what the pope and his curia say. Consecrate bishops against the pope’s explicit will? Necessity lets me do it. And so on.
Who needs to visit the Throne of Peter? You give the final thumbs-up or -down from your easy chair.
The pope speaks. You decide…
(Excerpt) Read more at traditionalmass.org ...
* Interesting. I did not know theologians had authority to teach. :)
In any event, it was funny to read Cekada deconstruct the camp of clowns and their legal mouthpiece.
Sedevacantism has been similarly deconstructed but reading one headless horseman unhorsing another headless horseman is entertaining :)
I'll post a link that rapidly deconstructs the sede loopyness. There is no need to cite this or that theologian and his personal opinions. Unless baptized and adopted by the Church, in Ecumenical Councils, Papal Encyclicals, Bishops teaching this in union with the Pope and agreed with by the laity - Sensus Fidei ..etc the personal opinions by theologians are just that, personal opinions.
All these headless horseman droping road apples all over the place are befouling the faithful :)
Prayer is the only remedy for these headless horseman.
Yeah, I agree.
Good article. Now is there one that deals with the anti-papists that are sitting in the pews next to me at the Novus Ordo?
I disgree. No pope was made out of cardboard. Seriously, folks. IT'S CARDBOARD.
How did he cite this with a straight face? This is bubble-gum exegesis. The "abomination in the temple" refers to two things:
1) The erecting of a statue of Caligula in the Temple of God.
2) A third re-building of the Temple.
Jesus Christ replaced the Jewish Temple. Theologically, there is no room for another Jewish Temple. Therefore, anything set up in such a Temple for worship would be an abomination, since the temple Jesus Christ is legitimately worshiped in Tabernacles across the world.
There is nothing to indicate that the anti-christ will be a "pope". He may be a KIND of pope, but he will never occupy the seat of Peter. Citing drivel such as this immediately discredits the author of this article.
Cekada suffers from the same intellectual flaw that the neo-Catholics suffer from; the fact that the Pope can err on many issues including discipline in the Church.
According to both Cekada and the average Neo Cath. No Catholic can discern right from wrong without a direct message from the Pope. At that point there is no point to learning the faith since discernment is tossed out the window.
I first noticed this when the group over at Envoy used to say that the sedes were the most consistently logical of the traditionalists. They spoke glowingly of them.
The reason for this is they both rest on the same faulty premise. One papal bull from one Pope does not make a dogma. Especially one that has no apostolic tradition.
The sedes are more logical than the "Emperor's new clothes" attitude of the Neos but those are simply subjective conclusions on the same faulty premise. "The Pope said it, it must be correct." or, "He said it, and it's wrong, so he can't be the Pope."
Silly.
The Sedevacantists are a sick, sad, pathetic joke. The Big T Traditional Schismatists aren't far behind.
On the other hand, both Sts. Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori are in favor of the belief that the Roman Pontiff will never defect from the faith. Likewise, all Catholic theologians seem to be agreed that "acceptatio illa Ecclesiae non est causa, sed signum et effectus infallibilis validae electionis" - that reception by the Church is not the cause, but the sign and infallible effect of a valid election (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, t. 2 tit. 7 § 454). But the sedevacantists now inform us that the elections of Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, JP II, and Benedict XVI were invalid due to their "heresy", despite the fact that the entire Church consented to their elections.
Likewise, sedevacantists point to, e.g., Council decrees or papal encyclicals, ignoring the fact that traditional Catholic theologians such as Billot, J.B. Franzelin, etc. hold that these are protected by at least a "prudential" infallibility which prevents them from containing heresy.
Also, sedevacantist charges that the Pope has fallen from his office are beset by the fatal flaw that they simply can't demonstrate any heresy on his part. Instead they have to appeal to imaginary teachings of the "ordinary and universal magisterium" against views that they personally don't like, or Fr. Cedaka's favorite argument based on the supposed "impiety" of the Roman Rite.
Sedevacantism is, in fact, a pathetic joke.
How do you know Paul IV wasn't a heretic?
I mean considering some of the dubious actions he did, it seems that he falls under his own condemnations and nullifies his own decree.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"Paul IV elevated to the cardinalate his nephew Carlo Caraffa, a man utterly unworthy and without any ecclesiastical training, and enriched other relatives with benefices and estates taken from those who favoured the Spaniards. At the end of the unfortunate war with Philip II the aged pope lost faith in his nephews and banished them from the Court. Still more disastrous were his relations with England, which had been reconciled to Rome by Mary, and Cardinal Pole. Paul IV refused to sanction Pole's settlement in regard to the confiscated goods of the Church, and demanded restitution. Pole himself was relieved by the pontiff of his legatine office and ordered to come to Rome to stand before the Inquisition. Upon the death of Mary and Pole, he rejected Elizabeth's claim to the crown, on the ground that she was of illegitimate birth. His activity was more fruitful in the spiritual concerns of the Church. He could boast that no day passed without seeing a new decree of reform. He made the Inquisition a powerful engine of government, and was no respector of persons. The great Cardinal Morone was brought before the tribunal on suspicion of heresy and committed to prison. Paul established the hierarchy in the Netherlands and in the Orient.
The pontificate of Paul IV was a great disappointment. He who at the beginning was honoured by a public statue, lived to see it thrown down and mutilated by the hostile populace. He was buried in St. Peter's 19 Aug., 1559, and was later transferred to S. Maria sopra Minerva."
I mean the whole point of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was to safeguard and guarantee the orthodoxy of the Shepherds.
By Fr. Cekada's standards as well, this Pope lost his office. So, appealing to it as a proof of sedevacantism is an exercise in circular logic. If it's accurate, he lost his office or never had it. If he lost his office, the document doesn't have force.
You could also argue since he was 83 years old in the year 1559 that he was not in control of his faculties when this document was promulgated.
Unfortunately, Vidi, you are employing the old logical fallacy of ad hominem. Put another way, Fr. Cekada's opinion on Terri (in which he was wrong and Ferrara was not only right, but heroically so) has no bearing on the debate between the same parties over sedevacantism. This debate must be weighed according to the merits of the arguments put forward by each party. As it stands now, Cekada has solidly refuted every major argument put forward by Ferrara against sedevacantism.
The argument is not circular because you would first have to prove:
1) That what Pope Paul IV did was serious enough to amount to a loss of office...
2) That this loss of office took place before he promulgated the decree in question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.