Monday, June 7, 2010

Pope? Nope! A Syllogism for Sedevacantism

As a follow-up to my last post, eminent Traditionalist priest Fr. Cekada has put together a concise argument for the sedevacantist position:

1. The authority of the Church, because of Christ’s promise, cannot give evil laws or teach error.

2. It is therefore impossible that the evils and errors officially sanctioned by the post-Vatican II hierarchy could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.

3. Those who promulgated these evils and errors must somehow lack (have lacked) real authority in the Church.

4. Canonists and theologians teach that public or manifest defection from the faith, automatically brings with it loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope, who in his personal capacity, becomes a heretic.

5. Two popes, Innocent III and Paul IV, explicitly mentioned the possibility that a heretic could end up on the throne of Peter. Paul IV even declared that such a pope’s election would be invalid and that he would lack all authority.

6. Since the authority of the Church cannot defect (give evil or error), but a pope (or a bishop) as an individual can, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II evils (the new Mass) and errors (religious liberty, ecumenism, etc.) is that they proceeded (proceed) from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and various diocesan cathedrals did (do) not objectively posses canonical authority, having lost it through public defection from the faith.

Fr Cekada and others have repeatedly published pronouncements from pre-Vatican II theologians, canonists and popes — Badii, Bellarmine, Beste, Coronata, Dorsch Herrmann, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, Schultes, Van Noort, Vermeersch, Wernz-Vidal, Wilhelm, Zubizarreta, Pope Innocent III, Pope Paul IV, etc. —to support the principles enunciated above. All Traditionalists would do well to memorize this quick argument in support of the Traditionalist position.

No comments:

Post a Comment