What Is Wrong in Cekada’s Arguments?

Hello TIA Desk,

Thank you again for everything you all do. I am especially grateful for Dr. Marian Horvat and her efforts to restore the Faith and Tradition.

I, like many others, have been looking more seriously into the sede-vacantist position. I am no theologian, but as a simple layman looking at the situation without bias, and simply considering the fruits of Vatican II and the contradictions and compromises of the FSSP (which I have exclusively attended for the last eight years), I continually find myself being led toward the sede-vacantist position.

Fr. Cekada, R.I.P., summarizes the position in a clear, syllogistic way in his article Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope:

1. Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.
   
   
2. Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
   
   
3. It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
   
   
4. Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.
   
   
5. Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the Faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.
   
   
6. Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. Paul IV decreed that the election of such a pope would be invalid, and that he would lack all authority.
   
   
7. Since the Church cannot defect but a pope as an individual can defect (as, a fortiori, can diocesan bishops), the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we have catalogued is that they proceeded (proceed) from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, did (do) not objectively possess canonical authority.

I am simply a layman who is struggling during these confusing times. When I read this argument, I find a certain clarity in it. But I also feel that I must be missing something. Where is the error in this argument?

If I were to seek out a sedevacantist priest for the sacraments, would I be committing a sin? My conscience is telling me that I should stop attending the FSSP/Vatican II Church, but at the same time I am afraid of fully committing myself to the sedevacantist position.

If you could offer any clarity or guidance on these questions, I would be very grateful.

    May God reward you!

    M.L.


The Editor responds:

Hello M.L.,

Thank you for your amiable words on our work. They are very much appreciated.

When dealing with the present-day crisis of the Church there are different approaches to take. One is a strictly juridical approach, such as that which Fr. Cekada and most of the sede-vacantist partisans take. Another is an approach of Catholic sense, which without disregarding the juridical, places it in perspective, which is the one TIA adopts.

Before entering into the shortcomings of Fr. Cekada’s reasoning, let me try to explain the Catholic sense approach from a historical and pious perspective.

I - Lessons regarding Catholic sense

1. At the time of Our Lord:

• When Our Lord came to redeem mankind, the Synagogue was in a profound crisis. On one hand there were the Sadducees – the progressivists of the time who wanted to adapt religion to the Greek-Roman establishment. On the other hand, there were the Pharisees – the false traditionalists who made a rigorous interpretation of the Law. Both currents rejected Our Lord, united against Him and plotted His Crucifixion, which was the greatest heresy and apostasy in History followed by the most heinous crime ever committed: the Deicide.
  
  
• Our Lord called the Pharisees the children of the Devil (Jn 8:4) and a race of vipers (Mt 3:7, 12:34, 23:33) among many other severe condemnations. But He did not declare that the High Priests – who were the pre-figures of the Popes – had lost their power, nor did He declare the seat of the Synagogue vacant.
  
  
• On the contrary, one episode reveals that the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Evangelists to write their Gospels, considered those High Priests as valid. Indeed, when referring to the meeting in which the Pharisees decide to kill Our Lord, St. John reports: “But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.” (Jn, 11: 49-51)
  
  In this text it is affirmed twice that Caiphas was the High Priest, which is a divine confirmation that he was a valid religious authority.
  
  
• So, if we want to follow the example of Our Lord, we should not declare the See of Rome vacant, even when we see the Conciliar Popes falling into heresies, apostasies and crimes similar to the Deicide, since they are resolved to kill the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church.

2. During History:

• We have exposed on the TIA website many cases of Popes who fell into heresies, apostasies and crimes in History, such as Popes Marcellinus, Liberius, Zosimus, Vigilius and Honorius .The Church and her Saints fiercely opposed and condemned their doctrine and their positions. However, in none of these cases did she declare the See of Peter vacant. It is an example to be followed today, when Catholics face a situation that is still graver than those, but goes on the same path.

3. In our times:

• Referring to our times, we have the Message of La Salette in which Our Lady predicted that the See of Rome would apostatize and become the Seat of the Antichrist, which would made the Church enter into a period of eclipse.
  
  Now, nothing can be graver than to say that Rome, the See of Truth, will become the Seat of the Antichrist. It signifies that the Popes will spread a doctrine that is the opposite of that of Christ.
  
  Nonetheless, Our Lady did not say that the See of Peter would be vacant, but rather that the Church would enter into eclipse. In an eclipse the sun continues to be what it was, but it is momentarily hidden from the view of all because it is covered by the moon. So, the message is clear: The Church does not disappear or change; she is entirely as she always was; she is just hidden from the sight of all by the doctrine of the Antichrist, which is Progressivism. She is, as Our Lady herself so aptly warned, in eclipse.

So, we have the Gospels, History and La Salette teaching us Catholic sense – which is nothing but common sense in the matter of Faith – to use when we evaluate the crisis in the Papacy.

II. Shortcomings of the sede-vacantist reasoning

Now, let me address your question to show what is wrong in the reasoning of Fr. Cekada.

1. It is the reasoning of an academic scholar locked in his office and surrounded by books. It is a reasoning that has a value, which I will analyze, but is entirely removed from Catholic sense. It is the product of what the French call the raison raisonante – a reasoning mind – different from the raison raisonable – a reasonable mind.
   
   
2. It is a reasoning that lacks humility or, if you prefer, it is a reasoning that pretends to have an authority that no Catholic has – which is the authority to declare when the See of Peter is vacant. Indeed, the Church in her near 2,000 years of History did not establish the criteria to decide when a Pope loses its pontificate. However, Fr. Cekada pretends to close this question with his reasoning.
   
   The discussion about whether a heretic pope keeps or loses his functions has not been closed in the Church. It is in the stage of quaestiones disputatae – questions being discussed. In this stage, no one can pretend to have a final say until the Church officially declares her sentence. If he does, he is arrogant.
   
   
3. St. Robert Bellarmine was implicitly mentioned in Cekada's item 5. He is the main theologian quoted by sede-vacantist proponents. What St. Bellarmine did was to present a compilation of the quaestiones disputatae at his time – which he divided in five general opinions. At the end, he presented his opinion – about if and when the Pope loses his pontificate.
   
   His opinion is that this happens when the heresy of the Pope becomes publicly and notoriously known. Again, this is just his opinion. It is not the position of the Church. Fr. Cekada, in his item 5, insinuates that it is an official position of the Church. It is not.
   
   
4. To reinforce his item 5, he affirms in item 6 that Pope Paul IV declared that if a heretic would be elected Pope he would be invalid. Actually, in the Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio Paul IV did declare this. But such Bull was gravely omissive and inapplicable as shown here.
   
   For this reason, St. Pius X replaced it with the Anti-Modernist Oath that each Cardinal had to take at the Conclave before the election of a new Pope. Further, that sentence by Paul IV was superseded by canon 1888 § 4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which determined that any clergy who would fall into heresy would ipso facto lose his office.
   
   Fr. Cekada conveniently does not mention that Cum ex was replaced and superseded – which means that it no longer has force of law – in order to reinforce his reasoning. Not an honest procedure...
   
   
5. Since no one but Christ or another future Pope has the authority to decide when a Pope loses his pontificate in the realm of doctrine, the best thing we can do for the good of the Church in the practical realm is not to proudly pretend that we are above the whole past of the Church or to attribute to St. Bellarmine an authority he did not have, but rather to remain inside the Church resisting every single error the Conciliar Popes make.
   
   By so resisting, we help to undermine the progressivist papal authority and make more people step out of its influence. The more we make people take this position, the more Progressivism loses its momentum. The slower it becomes the more people resist. The cycle restarts.
   
   If this wave continues, the conciliar Popes will lose their authority. It is a practical position based on good sense. It removes Progressivism from its usurped position and shows who is still Catholic in the Catholic Church. We stay inside and put them out…

Here you have, M.L., the answer to your request.

I hope it will help you to walk on the right path, and not be deceived by proud elucubrations that do not follow the mind of the Church.

     Cordially,

     Atila Guimarães, editor