When Sedevacantists bite back.


I hate to say it, but I think the sedevacantist Fr. Anthony Cekada has won round 1 in his debate with Remnant polemicist Chris Ferrara.

Sedevacantism and Mr. Ferrara's Cardboard Pope
Recognizing the pope — but “for display purposes only”


Father Cekads blew him out of the water

I myself am not a sede, but I am a traditionalist as I am part of the church but want things restored , or at least much of it to before V2, but the sede position seems to make more sense to what is taking place today in the church than the SSPX version. History has seen a slew of bad heretical popes who by their very actions, and not by need of some council, forfeit the seat

Logical only if you don't believe in the promises of Christ, that the Church will always stand upon the Rock. Or that whole thing about priests being worked through by God even if not holy themselves.

And if you don't believe in these promises of Christ, you pretty much aren't Catholic.

I'm not sure what Jack means by "the church of Vatican II".
[I see the comment to which I'm responding has been deleted. Pete has less patience than I do, apparently.]

If he's referring to the imaginary church that exists only in the minds of 'progressives', a church which has Vatican II and no other council before it, then of course he's right to say that such a church would not be the real Catholic Church, the Church of Christ.

On the other hand, if he's referring to the Church which held the council and 19 others before it, the Church to which the last four Popes belonged and to which the current Pope Benedict belongs -- to reject that Church is to be a sedevacantist or else an adherent of some antipope.

If Jack has any evidence that Blessed Pope John XXIII belonged to a masonic association, I hope he will send it to Rome and publish it immediately, but on his own web site, not this one.

Fr. Brian Harrison wrote an article on the subject of sedevacantism some time ago, but it's not available on-line. However, his arguments are summarized in this newsletter from the Feeneyite group in New Hampshire. He points out that even if charges of heresy, freemasonry, etc., were true of a Cardinal, the rules for papal conclaves explicitly lift any censures from cardinals in the conclave, precisely to avoid a situation in which secret delicts made a Pope ineligible.

"I see the comment which I'm responding has been deleted. Pete has less patience than I do, apparently."

That is correct. I will not tolerate radtrad attempts to disrupt this blog. That being said, I participate at another group blog where we do battle with rad-trads. It is called the Lidless-Eye Inquisition. Jack is more than welcome to join us there and comment to his heart's content.

There's this article on the subject by Fr. Harrison:


Thanks, Matt! That's the article!

The question I...


[Again, you are more than welcome to post whatever rad-trad conspiracy your heart desires in the comments' section of my other group blog which is designed specifically for this purpose -- Lidless-Eye.blogspot.com. If you are too much of a coward to show up, don't complain that I'm deleting your comments on the present blog.


the V2 supporters, most of whom control these boards due to unlimited support and funding that the church and Dioceses throw to furhter their V2 agenda,...


That is actually very funny.

Listen, bud: stblogs.org is just me. I own the domain and I pay the bills, with some kind contributions from my fellow blog-writers. That's it. No sugar-daddies here! (And I'm not complaining: it's not a lot of money.)

In a sense, though, you're right about V2 supporters. I support the Church, and I consider myself morally obliged to limit -- at least to some degree -- the expression of erroneous views on this site.

Pete posted this particular thread, so it's to him to use his discretion about the right level of strictness. He was especially within his rights to delete your comments when you committed slander. Avoid that, will you?

If you want untrammeled free speech, go start your own blog. There are several free services on the net, and if you have something worthwhile to read, people will read it.

I as a traditional catholic find it sad that you have to resort to censorship....


I can only surmise, that you dont want the past teachings of the church to be known


As a mother of a young girl,


What do you fear by these debates?

Dear Vivian,

Did you actually read what I stated? You should. Reading and reasoning are important skills if you intend to homeschool your little girl. So let's go over my comments again.

I have nothing to fear from these debates. In fact, I have an entire blog devoted to these type of debates. Take it there. Here's the URL for the third time. I have even hyperlinked to make it easier for you to find it: lidless-eye.blogspot.com.

Why are you, Jack and every other complainer in this thread too fearful to show up?

Leave a comment

What? Who?

On life and living in communion with the Catholic Church.

Richard Chonak

John Schultz

You write, we post
unless you state otherwise.


About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Pete Vere published on October 2, 2005 8:52 AM.

Canada's Slippery Slope to Velvet Naziism... was the previous entry in this blog.

Isaiah sings the Wild Grape Blues is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.