As we've written on numerous occasions, the Readers, as a group, don't embrace any one of the current explanations for the crisis in the papacy. Pistrina's editorial policy is aliquid pravism — something is gravely wrong with Rome, and we're arm-in-arm with any traditional Catholic, whether sede or R-'n'-R'er or Novus Ordite or conclavist, who confesses the same. Since the Church has never judged the matter, everything related to the question of loss of papal office is, as far as we're concerned, up for enlightened, civilized discussion among adults of good will.
Our indifference to partisanship aside, we do happen to be keen on a particular dog fight between the several contenders. Actually, up until now, it's not been a fight at all, but mostly one mangy cult cur yelping at the imperturbable sleek show dogs of the SSPX. But that dynamic has changed very recently. The purebreds have stopped ignoring this scrubby stray's wild, shrill barking and have answered back with one resounding *woof* in the form of a new book titled True or False Pope? by John Salza, a trained lawyer and noted Catholic apologist, and Robert Siscoe, a gifted lay thinker. This well-written, soberly argued volume will surely send Checkie whimpering back to the pound with his raggedy tail between his legs.
The authors' calmly reasoned defense of the Recognize-and-Resist position should be welcomed by all sides of the debate, since it will silence all the noise from Erroneous Antonius. At long last, educated and intelligent sede proponents (like those at Novus Ordo Watch) can make their points without questionable, vituperative distractions clouding the issues of the controversy. Possibly realizing he hasn't the skills, knowledge, or resources to counter Salza and Siscoe's effort, Tony Baloney's been taking (ineffectual) pre-emptive action by means of, as Deacon Dan wrote last week, "articles and videos on the internet, trying to debunk some of the 'tribal myths' as he [the Cheeseball] calls them, of traditional Catholics concerning the pope and obedience." Anybody with sense realizes Checkie's video bluster about the authors' providing grist for his malfunctioning mill is no more than whistling in a cemetery.
In their measured, competent way, Messrs. Salza and Siscoe haven't been idle themselves in cyberspace: they definitely haven't let this "sooner" get away with his awkward feints. In a brilliant and hard-hitting article, "Hypocrisy Alert: Father Cekada Recognizes and Resists Pope Pius XII" (available by clicking here), they not only expose Tony's misunderstanding of fundamentals but anatomize with surgical precision his argumentative inconsistencies and fallacies. In another devastating tour de force, "Stuck in a Rut: Father Cekada's Glaring Error on Canon 151" (found here), they at last debunk the creaky and creepy cult myth that Bonehead Tone is a canon law "expert." (Salza and Siscoe also demonstrate how Cheesy and the Donster are very much at odds, Big Don getting his facts straight, the Blunderer, as usual, not.)
The Readers enthusiastically recommend this book to any traditional Catholic — of whatever persuasion — who wants not only a clearheaded, intelligent, and grounded exposition of the R-'n'-R side but also a lucid and informed discussion of the theological/canonical issues underpinning the dispute. TradWorld has labored too long under the bombast and obfuscations of uncredentialed "clerics." To read a correction of the misrepresentations, you may purchase the book from the authors' website (click here) or from the Angelus Press (click here).
We think it should be clear by now that no one, save spaced-out cult spastics, should pay any attention to anything Tony Baloney says or writes. It's also clear that Pistrina's not alone in its very low opinion of Checkie's "erudition" (LOL). Earnest sedes should exclude him, too, for his unwholesome presence in the sede camp diminishes their standing.
That's a pity: The sede argument, in all its forms, deserves a hearing, just as do the other disputants' cases. By suffering Bonehead Tone, the byword for clerical ill-preparedness, to be the face of the sedevacantist cause, its adherents enter every contest of ideas hobbled by a serious disadvantage. The Cheeseburger's liabilities far outweigh any dubious gains his snarky vapidity or his awkward intrusiveness brings to the debate.
Don't you think it's time to put a muzzle on this contemptible nuisance? Right-thinking sedes will tell this snarling, distempered mutt to scat.
I'm a Roman Catholic who holds the sedevacantist position.
ReplyDeleteThe average sedevacantist is a lying hypocrite by praising & loving Pius 12.Pius 12th was a modernist liberal who destroyed the Roman Rite between 1951-1958.Our Chapel doesn't acknowledge any change after 1950.
We observe the after midnight fast which no one observes anymore.Spread the truth,Pius XII was the first Paul VI.
Welcome to the wonderful world of schism!
DeleteThese chapels that resist the 1951/1955 holy week changes yet observe the 1957 3 hour communion fast are thinking of $$$.If they observed the proper immemorial after midnight fast,they wouldn't be able to have holy mass after 12pm.Theyre hypocrites,people need to open their eyes!!FAST AFTER MIDNIGHT READ THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.
DeletePoint well made. It's all about bucks.
DeleteI agree with you about the inconsistency, but I don't think you've thought this through. Catholics are not at liberty to ignore the Church's laws, and if they want to argue that such law is no longer in effect, that is a dangerous road to privately travel on one's own non-authority.
DeleteOne thing that can never be done is to attack the laws of the Church, as an attack against such laws is an attack against the Church itself and is schism.
The Church can never give us laws that are evil or incentives to impiety, and it is our obligation to trust such laws and the lawgiver who gave us such laws.
I do trust the laws of the church which is why we fast after midnight!
DeleteIf you trusted the laws of the Church, you would know that the fast is now 3 hours. You do have the right to voluntarily follow the midnight fast, but that is not the law.
DeleteThe problem nowadays is that Checkie has told the people that the laws of the Church can cease (presumably when he says they should).
DeleteI agree. That's why Catholics need to educate themselves and not rely on those with an agenda,
DeletePrecisely, Gene. Agenda-driven troublemakers should be barred from the entire discussion.
DeleteWe'd like to see this debate carried out by genuinely credentialed individuals who really know Latin and who can argue without getting hot and bothered or resorting to insults or peppering their replies with snide remarks like Checkie's "moonlighting lawyer."
The contestants may trade as many rebuttals as they wish. In fact, the more, the better the corpus of thought by which Catholics can inform themselves. But the moment sarcasm, the spirit of conflict, or bitterness intrudes, the source is immediately excluded from the conversation. All should argue as seekers after truth, not point scorers.
Of course, there won't be an absolute winner until the Church judges. But Catholics all around will win because the rancor will disappear, and those who do adopt one of the sides will know they did so free from all the confusing noise that emotionally charged partisans bring with them.
Neither Salza nor Siscoe know a whiff of Latin.
DeleteCheckie beats them in this most important requirement of yours.
But they may have someone who knows it well. That's the same thing, As we have exposed time and time again, the Cheeseball is completely hopeless, and he has no one to call upon to help him
DeleteJust a personal observation. The whole Catholic Church's Teaching does not rest solely at the door step of Pius XII. To the contrary, it just stops there until Christ restores it.
DeleteSo if you claim to be Catholic and hold to the title, then it is obvious that Christ never left His Church. For those who can only see what is in front of them, then yes, it is a bleak road ahead. However, for those who realize that our Faith was instituted by Christ, then handed down to Peter and so on, and so forth will one day realize that if they just look behind them they will find a legacy of graces that will sustain them until the end of time.
The the FAITH HAS NOT CHANGED. Rome changed, as predicted by Our Lady of LaSalette.
What to do?
Hold on to the Faith as taught throughout the ages by some very HOLY MEN. Need I remind you that Pius XII was not canonized, yet Sts. Pius V and X were.
So to me as a Catholic who knows that Rome has become the "SEAT OF The ANTICHRIST" could not possibly have a HOLY FATHER who would defend the Faith, but rather an UNHOLY TERROR who is out to destroy it. Thus demanding me as a Catholic, and a soldier in Christ's army to defend and preserve the Faith, as taught by Christ and not the anti-Christ.
That means if I choose to fast 12 hours as prior to Pius XII, I will, but if 3 hours is a bit easier on the body then so be it, and without the fear of mortal sin.
We do not have a Holy Father: So What?
We have had over 250 Popes in the past and they managed to preserve the Faith for the hearts of those who seek to find it through the graces of God, which has never left HIS CHURCH throughout the ages.
We have Christ's promise that He will be with His Church until the end of time. Now all we have to do is to make sure we are not in the right pew, but the wrong Church, lest we be guilty of not practicing the Faith as left to us by Christ Himself through His sacrifice of LOVE.
We are not Protestants! We are either Catholic or we are not! Truth unites, it does not divide, and a house divided will fall.
The fact of whether Popes are canonized or not is irrelevant. The laws as given by the Pope binds his subjects, and remain in effect unless a future Pope changes the law.
DeleteCouncil of Trent,Council of Florence,and many popes forbade any change to liturgy under the penalty of being damned.Pius XII holy week changes and 3 hour fast are heresy.Go ahead and type some emotional drivel not backed up by fact.Will not respond,have a lovely day.
DeleteSo,2 different councils and previous popes forbid any change to the liturgy and laws related to liturgy under the penalty of being damned for eternity,yet your hero Pius XII can invoke new laws and ritual to the oldest traditions in the Catholic Church under the guise of being "experimental",and it's all good?
DeleteI will obey the Catholic faith and her laws pre-1950,INCLUDING fasting after midnight and pre-1950 Holy Week.You do as you wish,it's easy.Have a lovely week Sir.
Give approved sources for you assertions or just admit that you make it up as you go.
DeleteI did learn to read.
DeleteSo, anonymous, do you observe the Black Fast as well?
DeleteNo I converted to catholicism in 2011,and learned about the black fast last year.my job prevents me from doing the last week of black fast.
DeleteSo,is every catholic before 1957 who fast after midnight yet didn't observe black fast a fraud and cheat?I am not being rude just asking.What is so hard about fasting after midnight?I have talked to other people who do this,usually they're older people.One particular man stands out,he is 79 yrs old.If they can do after midnight fast,surely we can.The 79 yr old man is an online contact,I don't actually know him.
He like me thinks 3 hours is OK for sick & old people.Other than that,we should have more respect and discipline when receiving our Blessed Lord.
Pope: Pius XII made changes. Many were scandalize…: http://youtu.be/toBQ_NqhqrE
DeleteWhy should anyone have to shell out almost $40 to find out? If Messrs. Salza and Siscoe truly cared about misled souls, the info in the book would be free online.
ReplyDeleteSorry, neither myself nor anyone should have to pay to find out "the facts." My family, and I'm sure we're not alone, do not have that kind of money to spend on any book. We barely make ends meet.
Anon 777
A good point.
DeleteThat's why we linked the free articles on the website. Those are sufficient to give the outlines of the R-'n'-R position and expose Cekada for the ignoramus that he is.
But come to think about it, why should the laity have to shell out $25.00 + for Cekada's still error filled "Work of Human Hands"? Why didn't SGG make it free for all the laity? Surely the Greets would have paid for this grand apostolate!
Reader, you won't get any argument from me. I'm slow on the take sometimes, but one day years ago it dawned on me: if someone has information vital to my spiritual well-being and the salvation of my soul, why should I, or anyone, have to pay money to find it out?
DeleteI realize they have families and have to make a living too, but why at my expense?
Anon777
We agree. Instead of paying for Dannie's vacations and luxuries, why don't the SGG cultlings underwrite free distribution of materials to help the faithful?
DeleteSure, publication costs have to be covered, but why can't they underwrite the lion's share and just charge a nominal fee?
We're not blaming the SSPX here. They have to charge because Checkie started a fight in which their people aren't interested. So naturally, they shouldn't be expected to underwrite the costs of their rebuttal. Maybe an organization like True Restoration could step in with a subvention.
To Anon. Jan. 16, 11:49 PM: If someone undergoes the expense of having a work published, he has every right to expect to be financially compensated for it. After all, if Tony Cekada can expect to be compensated for writing TRASH, why shouldn’t Salza and Siscoe be compensated for writing THE TRUTH. But if you are concerned about having to pay for what they wrote, then I hope that you feel the same way about paying for Tony’s trash. But the very fact that Salza and Siscoe wrote what they did tells me that they DO care about souls – and certainly more than Cekada does.
DeletePerhaps in time, after they recoup their (publishing) investment, their book may very well be offered free online. And, as noted (and LINKED) in Pistrina’s article, they DO have articles that are available free online. So, if you can’t afford to buy their book, we suggest that you can at least read those links.
I hold the sedevacantist position however sedevacantism isn't a dogma.We have no place condemning anyone!!
DeleteHear! Hear!
DeleteI'M the same anonymous who exposed the sedevacantist inconsistency of condemning holy week changes in 1951/1955 yet practicing 3 hour holy communion fast instead of after midnight fast.I have learned via experience the average sedevacantist does not know theology.They have no place condemning the SSPX for many reasons.The main reason being they 'recognize & resist' various Pius XII laws.I will maintain the sedevacantist position but it's embarrassing reading their impoverished theology.
DeleteYes, some of the sedes are their own worst enemy. And as we said in our post, that's a pity. The sede argument deserves to be heard, but it can only be heard once the peanut gallery is silenced.
DeleteI have to admit that I would love to read the Salza/Siscoe book, but simply can't afford it. Maybe one day a used copy of the it will show up one day on Amazon for a few dollars.
ReplyDeleteAnon777
In the meantime you can read S & S's articles on their website. The link to it is in today's post.
DeleteWe would be very interested to see if Bp P and CMRI makes any comments on the book.His writings are also poor and lacks any formal seminary training.
ReplyDeleteA very good point.
DeleteA colleague tells us he doesn't think they'll say much publicly because they know S & S would wipe up the floor with them, intellectually speaking. Perhaps they may comment among themselves and their followers.
What we can't wait for is Checkie's response. We expect it to be full of errors in Latin, which we'll communicate to S & S. The big question is whether he'll publish on the web or issue a book. If it's a book, then another fund raiser will no doubt be in the offing. Poor Gerties!
But the real fun will begin when S & S take him to school with their rebuttal. Maybe the intelligent sedes will intervene soon and tell the Cheeseball to shut up and let someone who really knows something answer S & S's critique.
S&S like you say are a fully funded and publicized arm of the SSPX -- just like it turns out Fr. Gruner & his Fatima money maker w/Chris Ferrara was. Fellay has written the preface to this important $40 book. Sure SSPXers will be arm-twisted to buy. Wonder who all is getting a cut of the proceeds. Meanwhile, SSPX is getting ready to reconcile w/Francis who hides the Crucifix and accepts sodomites, adulterers, fornicators, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists "as they are" and now is going to accept "SSPX" as they are.
DeleteWonder, though, who Francis will appoint to be the next bishop of SSPX--a sleek dog (in the manger)?
http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2016/01/bp-fellay-talks-about-proposed.html
Could it be that VC2 is funding your sleek show dogs (paid publicists), S&S? THEY are ONE(faith) w/Francis. Are you ONE (faith) w/Francis? And if not why are you publicly professing that you are in your worship of God in the holy sacrifice of the mass?
When something is GRAVELY wrong w/someone (i.e. they are in danger of eternal death and leading everyone under their influence their) one doesn't continue to prop up their regime or even negotiate to join their GRAVELY wrong group. Imagine if Fellay was going to join w/holocaust denier Wmson(!!!!!!) or w/the KuKluxKlan. If you think something is GRAVELY wrong (like they were axe murdering souls and denying Jesus Christ) you would want to distance yourself as far as possible from them --they are actually worse than protestants, who don't call themselves the "true" church while touting their NEW religion. Will SSPX give communion to adulterers and sodomites? All the R&Rs will either end up VC2ers or Sedes.
Anonymous 2:51 Well stated!
DeleteWe don't have a pope which is all the more reason to obey the council of Trent when it comes to discipline and liturgy.It serves as an authority during times of anarchy.
DeleteSalza a "noted Catholic apologist"? The man has something about the Orthodox Church on his website which is HERETICAL, which he has yet to retract and correct, and he's a blatant liar to boot, obstinately misrepresenting the SV position. The man has NO CLUE about Catholic teaching.
ReplyDeleteFor all his faults, at least Cekada was able to prove just how true this is with an article he wrote against Salza.
They are both attempting to prove something which is blatantly false with their silly book, namely, that a heretic can STILL be a valid Pope.
"well-written, soberly argued volume"? "calmly reasoned defense of the Recognize-and-Resist position"? "measured, competent way"? "clearheaded, intelligent, and grounded exposition of the R-'n'-R side"?
R&R is dangerous nonsense that has no support whatsoever in Catholic teaching.
And how would you know all this if you haven't read the book?
It is pathetic to see how you people will go ahead and praise the enemy just to get at the cultmasters.
But we have read the book.
DeleteYou read it in 6-9 days?
DeleteEasy-peasy. And highlighted, too.
DeleteAnon. Jan. 17, 2:57 PM.
DeleteNo Catholic who admits there's a problem with Rome is our enemy.
In how much time, exactly, did you read it?
DeleteIntroibo ad altare dei2.com has a great article on his blog about Mr.Salza.
ReplyDeleteAt least Salza & Siscoe write in unified, structured, and coherent paragraphs, a virtue absent from Checkie's usual 3-sentence clusters.
DeleteR&R is a big pile of bullshit based on lies and falsehoods.
ReplyDeleteEven when I was in the Novus Ordo I could still see it for the nonsense that it was.
Sedevacantism, on the other hand, is actually based on approved Catholic teaching.
All sides in the debate claim their arguments are based on Catholic teaching, and all have been able to offer documentation to support their claims.
DeleteThe sedevacantists quote St. Robert Bellarmine and other Doctors of the Church, as well as Canon Law. The R&Rers can't find anyone better than people like John of St. Thomas, a deservedly unknown, uncanonized medieval writer who was forgotten long ago.
DeleteYou definitely need to get your facts straight about your so-called "deservedly unknown" John of St. Thomas. Unknown (and never heard of) by you, maybe, but not by the scholarly world. And what do you mean by "uncanonized" and "medieval"?
DeleteThose who teach, spread, support or defend r&r are actually CRIMINALS because it is based on outrageous and inexcusable twisting, corruption and misrepresentation of true Catholic teaching.
ReplyDelete"Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness."
R-'n'-R proponents might say the same about the sedes.
DeleteThe better approach is to tone down the rhetoric and argue each case with sound scholarship and without emotion. Both sides' damning each other to hell won't help Catholics' understanding of the merits and failings of each position.
They never have, because they can't. Prove it. I've read all their arguments and it's always been a case of completely twisting and corrupting what St. Robert Bellarmine taught, even going so far as to attemp to convince people he never taught what he did! They even HIDE what he actually said. It's a total disgrace and an outrage.
DeleteThey put John of St. Thomas on a pedestal and ignore or corrupt all the evudence. That's the best they can do.
Strong accusations.
DeleteCan you support your assertions with hard, dispassionately argued evidence?
If you can, you should publish on the web so that others can evaluate your analysis. Should your arguments and evidence withstand scholarly scrutiny, you will have made a material contribution to the debate. You could establish a free scribd account to make your findings widely available, and we would be glad to make the link available.
Checkie has 2 articles exposing this.
DeleteBut he's your worst enemy, so will you yourself be "dispassionate, objective" and give them a read?
We've read him. But the problem is, as we've shown over and over again, he's not reliable. Any one who so perversely mistranslated infallible papal teaching deserves only a contemptuous reading. You yourself shouldn't rely on him either.
DeleteWell, since you have shown yourselves to be Latin experts, it should be an easy task to simply read both articles and check if he translated them correctly.
DeleteActually, it's just a matter of verifying the couple translations made in both articles, which should be nothing for you since this is what you have been doing here all the time.
Well how about it? There's a genuine contribution you could easily make.
Here's the evidence for my strong accusations: in this one Fr. Cekada exposes Siscoe and shows just how perverted he actually is:
Deletehttp://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/bellarmine-fraud-copy/
And this is the other one, dealing with the "resistance" quote by St. Robert Bellarmine:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Bellarmine-Myth.pdf
This last one is optional but still exposes Salza:
http://www.fathercekada.com/2011/04/11/salza-on-sedevacantism-same-old-fare/
Go ahead then. Prove how Fr. Cekada made any mistakes here or how what he says is false.
You have no excuses and it shouldn't be any problem for you, Latin experts that you are.
We'll look at the sites. But remember, Checkie's unreliability goes beyond the errors he's made in Latin.
DeleteSure. The first article is fairly short. You should start with that one.
DeleteThanks, Anon. 1/19, for the helpful tip to start our review with the first article. You are very considerate.
DeleteIt doesn’t contain much Latin, yet we did mange to find the Blunderer playing fast and loose with Bellarmine’s original text. Below is how the Cheeseball translates the saint’s “at non potest vitari Papa manens Papa; quomodo enim vitabimus Caput nostrum”:
“But you can’t avoid a pope who remains pope; for how can we avoid our head?”
A literal translation is: “but a Pope remaining Pope cannot be avoided [or 'shunned']; for how shall we avoid [or 'shun'] our Head.” (We retained the original's capitals, but they’re of no consequence, and we don’t fault Tony Baloney for using a more modern style.)
Now, we don’t have a problem with his translation of the first independent clause, but we do take some exception to the second.
There is no warrant in the original for Checkie’s “can” even if you were to argue that in English “can” may be used in questions of appeal. Bellarmine chose the future of deliberation, and so it should be rendered. The Cheeseball’s miscue was obviously based on the “potest” (= “can,”) in the first clause, and almost certainly does not reflect a careful consideration of the ways in which to best represent the Latin future of deliberation in English.
He’s just careless and ignorant, that’s all.
We know that some people think theological Latin is easy to translate. It’s not. Semantics are of utmost importance, and the translator’s usual broad license is more limited. A competent translator must honor the author’s selection of one mode of expression over another. In other words, there must have been a reason why Bellarmine wrote, “Vitabimus,” rather than “possumus vitare” (as the Cheeseball would have you believe he did). A skilled, educated translator strives to reflect the rhetorical strategy of the original. An alternative, which also conveys a deliberative force, might have been, “for how are we to avoid our Head.” However, “can” goes too far and leads us to infer an entirely different Latin text (as well as discursive intentionality) behind the Cheeseburger’s English version.
Another criticism we have is his parenthesized definitions for *corrpetiones*, viz., “(‘admonitions’ or ‘warnings’)”. “Admonitions” is the rendering of the Douay-Challoner but “warnings” is a rather weak synonym that doesn’t shed any more light on the lexical force of the original. If he knew Latin, Bonehead Tone would have added instead “reproof,” or “censure” or “a rebuking,” synonyms much closer to the Latin root meaning.
Worse than the sloppy translation and thoughtless definition is Checkie’s customary slangy, adolescent smarminess like “zip, nada, nothing” or “as he proceeds at great length to slice and dice Cajetan.” Entirely out of place. He has no business in an adult debate, and we would recommend that you look elsewhere for support for your position. You may be right in what you charge, but relying on Checkie will just result in others’ ignoring your voice.
Good, thanks. So the point of the first article remains: Siscoe did not show truthfully what St. Robert Bellarmine actually taught but instead hid and corrupted it.
DeleteThis alone shows these people are not to be trusted.
Yes I don't agree with Fr. Cekada's juvenile slang either, and I wish he would scrap it and be more serious.
The second article is very important too, perhaps the most important, because it is what r&r is entirely based on.
I apologize for my earlier comments. I get out of control because I know these people know better and shouldn't be doing these things, it's inexcusable.
We're not sure we would impute such malicious intentions yet, for we haven't seen Siscoe's full article. However, it does appear that Siscoe may have engaged in some special pleading, and it does seem he certainly missed the saint's line of argumentation. (But again, we won't take Checkie's word for it. He's not to be trusted either in these matters. We'll try to find Siscoe's entire text and read it against the full Latin text of Bellarmine.)
DeleteWe'll get the second article in a day or two.
Great.
DeleteWe would add, Reader, that no one should ever discount stupidity and ignorance on either side of this controversy. The presumption of wicked intentions may violate the law of parsimony: It could well be that Mr. Siscoe simply didn't comprehend the format for theological argument and drew an uninformed and incorrect conclusion.
DeleteFrankly, it would be best for American traditionalists, the laity and especially the clergy, to be silent and leave Catholics to practice the faith as they understand it. Not one of these partisans has the training, experience, or the brief to advance an opinion in this serious matter. Their only utility is to expose the ignorance of their opponent.
The value of that has long passed: everyone knows Checkie's failures and those of S & S have also been aired. Both sides should be disqualified and their wrecked soapboxes consigned to the kindling pile.
That's a vain hope, we know, and the vitriol will continue to flow. Our comfort is that with each attack and counter attack, Catholics will at length come to see the inadequacies of the combatants and simply ignore them. Then maybe they'll concentrate on ending all the cults and starting afresh.
Anon. Jan 20, 4:18 AM:
DeleteWe’ve read the second article you cited, and we do agree with your assessment that it’s a much more substantial exposition than the first. We would also go so far as to say that it's persuasive, but we cannot say we’re persuaded. We affirm this not out of stubbornness or peevishness but from experience: we do not trust Checkie, and the limitations of the original forum (SGG newsletter?) do not allow him the space to redeem his reputation in our eyes. By his perverse translation of Pius XII’s teaching on holy orders and his numerous errors in WHH and elsewhere, he has forfeited the right to opine without the burden of substantial documentation to confirm his assertions.
Because he has lost the deference we might give to a genuine scholar, from the outset of the article he appears to be setting up a “straw man.” There are no citations of specific articles or books or websites to support his claim that opponents have taken the Bellarmine passage out of context. We must merely take his word, which we cannot do. He’s proved he’s no expert, and his history of Latin errors does not allow us to trust his reading of Cajetan or Bellarmine. We would have to read the originals ourselves to verify his claims, and we haven’t the inclination to do that. For a similar reason, we must discount for the time being his remarks about Gallicanism since he didn’t footnote the work of any authorities in support of his non-specialist’s judgment. (He has no advanced degree, and he’s not a recognized member of the academy.)
In a nutshell, Checkie’s voice deserves no more of a hearing than any other amateur’s in this controversy. Perhaps he warrants even less attention owing to his record of errors. We will grant that the tone and style are much more serious than the usual fare we read from the Blunderer, but those improvements cannot overcome our deep misgivings about his aptitude. As a result, we question any counterargument to R-‘n’-R based on the Cheeseball’s efforts. It could very well be that what he says is a perfectly just indictment of their practice. Why, it may even be devastating. If it came from another source, say, for instance, yourself, we would take it as a serious contribution to the debate, and we would recommend it to Catholics who don’t have our background in Latin as something to consider when weighing the arguments on both sides.
Unfortunately, its authorship condemns the piece even before reading, unless it were fortified with heavy documentation. It wasn’t. Now, we do understand that the newsletter would not have been the appropriate forum for such a piece as we would require. As the article stands, it’s perfectly appropriate in its setting as a kind of editorial page opinion column, where we don’t demand extensive citations from a writer we consider reliable. The problem is, the author has shown he hasn’t earned the common reader’s trust.
And finally, we are obliged to note another Latin translation problem. He renders *nitatur* as “tries,” but here it means “strives” or something to that effect. As we said before, he’s just sloppy.
I have seen this resistance quote from Bellarmine quoted all over the place. For example, the people over at traditioninaction.org quote it as their basis for their r&r.
DeleteI really can't believe you yourself have not seen it extensively quoted by the r&r camp.
It is Checkie's burden to establish the use and frequency of the quote. Whether we have seen it or not, is irrelevant in terms of academic discourse. No author may presume the readership's familiarity, even if writing to disciplinary experts. Had Checkie gone to a real college, he would have learned this basic rule of acaedmic argumentation.
DeleteIn light of his past performance, his burden is even heavier.
Having found your website.We have a question for the sedevacantists.Where is your true Pope going to come from?Are all the cult bishops going to hold a election.Talk about chaos.We have much respect for the SSPX position.
ReplyDeleteThat's all up to God. He will provide the means for a true Pope. Catholic teaching actually says that even a layman could be elected in an extreme event. There are people with valid orders all around the world. I believe the event will be supernatural and manifest to all.
DeleteOn the other hand, it is Catholic teaching that the Pope is the UNITY OF FAITH, so you go ahead and explain to me how the conciliar popes have been the CAUSE of DISUNITY OF FAITH for decades.
Now THATS chaos.
A few popes throughout history woke up laymen,went to bed elected pope,and received holy orders the same day or following day.
DeletePerhaps this is a sign that Providence will cause a layman to be elected for the Restoration? It's obvious the current cult clergy aren't up to the job.
DeleteAnonymous 3:38, where is your true pope now? And how can you believe that he can officially promulgate evil like the Novus Ordo upon the Church?
DeleteIt looks like he wasn't really wanting an answer to his question, he was just trolling.
DeleteDon't you hate it when that happens?
DeleteYou don't seem to expect a serious answer to your question of where the next pope could come from, but I'll humor you with one anyway.
DeleteIf Bergoglio were to convert from his heresy, and reject his errors, he could become pope. He would have to spend quite a bit of time in the sanctuary making a retraction of error, profession of faith, and swearing the anti-modernist oath. Then he'd have to receive all the Holy Orders starting with tonsure (I believe) through the minor orders and major orders including episcopal consecration. All this would have to come from a certainly valid bishop, meaning one who did not have in his lineage anyone who had received the doubtful Novus Ordo ordination or consecration ceremonies. After all this, if the world accepted him as the pope, his election would be convalidated by the universal acceptance of the Church, also called "acclamation", and he would come into possession of the keys of St. Peter and receive the office of the papacy.
Does that help answer your question?
A GENERAL COMMENT...
ReplyDeleteLast night we had a long Skype group conversation with some very close friends who are committed and highly educated sedevacantists. They are amazed and amused at the depraved reaction of some of the self-professed sedes who have written in our comments section.
Our friends, mostly multi-lingual Latin Americans with impeccable educational credentials, actually welcome the S & S volume. Although they remain unpersuaded by its general argument, they agree that the challenges presented by the authors will help them formulate an even more robust argument in favor of sedevacantism. For that, they are genuinely grateful and have every respect for their learned opponents.
This is the proper academic attitude in the face of opposition to one's position, not the fearful snarling of spittle-encrusted troglodytes calling down hellfire on a contrarian who challenges one's beliefs. But, then, as we said, these are sophisticated, well-schooled Latin Americans inured to reasoned discourse, not savage hilljack cultists or malformed gringo "clergy."
That's why most of the really engaging and truly persuasive sede arguments are made abroad. The U.S. proponents, with a few notable exceptions, are mostly raging wing nuts.
(1) Who are these Latin Americans? Isn't Latin America a very broad term anyway? Considering the "education" of Francis and man of the cardinals from Latin America, not sure where these folks got their education in the faith.
Delete(2) What are the Latin American/ abroad arguments that are more persuasive than the U.S. variety? Surely could be neatly summarized in one of your posts so that your readers would not have to take your word, but could judge the facts for themselves.
(3) The heresy is so blatant at this time what it comes down to at this time is those who state a public heretic can be pope and those who disagree. The question of how we could get a new pope has no bearing on the issue on whether or not we have a current pope. Actually, all those worried about how to get a new pope have been living w/out a pope for 50+ years, but their continual covering up of the heresies have kept the boil from being purged--and led many to hell along w/the heretic VC2 sect.
We've been considering a way to translate the work of these fine thinkers into English to make them available to Americans. But it would be a large, time-consuming project, requiring some financial backing. However, it might be well worth the effort to show English speakers just how superior these folks are to the likes of riff-raff like Big Don and Checkie. Maybe someone with deep pockets will come along.
ReplyDeleteWe remind you that Bergie and the Latin American cardinals do not represent all the thinkers from Latin America. The English-speaking world has never produced anyone near the brilliance of Carlos Alberto Disandro.
We agree with you that all this speculation of how the Restoration will come about is fruitless. Best to leave that to Providence.
Well, Spanish is my first language. Are there any works online of this man you mention?
DeleteWe have print editions in our possession, but you might be able to find something with a search. Also, perhaps some of our readers may have some links, which they'd might be willing to share.
DeleteI read a little bit about him and he condemned Lefebvre as a mason and the SSPX as a cult.
DeleteRead him, not about him, if you want to see the quality of his intellect and the depth of his argumentation.
DeleteAs a matter of fact, this is what I read:
Deletehttp://www.statveritas.com.ar/Doctrina/Errores_del_Dr.Carlos_Alberto_Disandro(R.P.Jean_Dominique_Fabre,O.P.).pdf
Great link. Thanks a million. We've never seen it.
DeleteWherever you may stand, you have to admire the mode of argumentation, far different from the fiery verbal missiles American wing nuts hurl at each other with a vengeance.
Ah, sweet Reason and civility! Something we gringos lack. This is emblematic of our choice to read South American or European sites: good prose, sound learning, serious focus, and intellectual substance.
What I read was from statveritas.com or .arg. They were quotes from one of his works, El Misterio de Monseñor Lefebvre. I tried finding it online but didn't find anything.
ReplyDeleteWe'll send an email to an acquaintance in South America to see if he knows of any online sites. As we said, we have only print editions.
DeleteWe hope the few quotations you read gave you a glimpse of Dr. Disandro's learning. (We're not asking you to agree with him.) He was a professor of classics with a strong philosophical inclination. Sometimes he's a challenging read, even for native speakers, but he always has something thoughtful to contribute if you're willing to stay the course.
Here are some links that may prove useful:
Deletehttp://sursumcordablog.blogspot.com.ar/2013/02/carlos-disandro-apostasia-y-confusion.html
http://sursumcordablog.blogspot.com.ar/2014/10/carlos-disandro-iglesia-y-pontificado.html
http://sursumcordablog.blogspot.com.ar/2015/07/disando-lefebvre.html
http://sursumcordablog.blogspot.com.ar/2014/10/carlos-disandro-la-gran-apostasia-y-los.html
http://sursumcordablog.blogspot.com.ar/2013/08/carlos-disandro-crisis-de-la-fe-y-ruina.html
http://sursumcordablog.blogspot.com.ar/2012/04/reflexiones-sobre-la-tradicion.html
http://capillavedia.blogspot.com.ar/#uds-search-results
I have to make a correction: it's actually not Salza himself who wrote the heresy regarding the Orthodox Church; what happens is that, in HIS website, he has an essay written by Dave Armstrong, a Novus Ordo modernist.
ReplyDeleteThis is the heresy:
"Catholics must believe that [Eastern] Orthodoxy is a part of the universal Church (commensurate with the Second Vatican Council and many recent papal encyclicals on ecumenism in general or Orthodoxy in particular)".
But such is the man who co-wrote this new book. A man who has open heresy in his own website and who is in communion with such a modernist as Armstrong.
Good catch, buddy. Kind of shows us who we're dealing with when we read Salza.
DeleteAnd now he removed the article from his website unceremoniously, "through the back door", without giving any explanations or apologies, it seems.
DeleteMaybe he hopes no one will notice?
Hahaha.
Salza and Siscoe's arguments and positions are carefully examined and completely refuted in these materials. You should view them:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/remnant-robert-siscoe-refuted-sedevacantism/
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/who-is-john-salza/
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/truth-about-the-sspx-mc-similar-groups/
Both men teach heresy on various matters, most notably their false position that one must be declared a heretic to be considered a heretic. They don't believe that one must profess the Catholic faith to be considered Catholic. They are heretics. Their arguments are bunk. The fact that they have put their false and already refuted arguments into a book doesn't make them valid.
True, but they have added to the evidence of Checkie's ill-suitness to participate in the debate. For that, Trad Nation should be grateful, even if they were Persian fire-eaters.
DeleteThis is totally off topic but do you know from what year (century) this pic hails?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.truerestoration.org/
https://www.truerestoration.org/season-iii-the-root-of-the-rot-i-the-christian-order-800-1274-a-d/
Our guess is that it must have been taken shortly after 'One Hand's" consecration in 1993. One of us saw it hanging in one of his chapels in the mid '90s, among the photos of popes.
ReplyDeleteMy general idea about all this discussion is the following: from what I see, most of you discussing this have hardly any knowledge of theology, of latin, of the history of the Church and its laws and doctrines, and have the nerve to attack seminarian professors that spends their whole life studying these things, researching them, teaching them in seminaries. Who are you to come up and to say that their doctrine is erroneous? These types of discussion spread nothing else put confusion and error...particularly to people seriously researching for solid truth on these matters.
ReplyDeleteGisèle,
DeleteIt appears as though you may live abroad and have no direct contact with the "clergy" we criticize. Rest assured that these men are NOT "seminary professors" in the normal, academic sense of the word. Indeed, the places where they operate are not even Catholic seminaries, properly understood. These men have no advanced degrees, nor have they studied at the appropriate ecclesiastical institutions of higher learning. Moreover, they are not scholars who spend much of their day in deep study. They couldn't be, even if they had the aptitude, education, and willingness. At best -- and this is being generous -- they are amateurs, or better yet, hobbyists. They deserve no respect, and Catholics should not rely on their inexpert and often self-interested opinions.
Gisele, did you proofread your post before posting it? Reading it makes you look like just the type of person that would think that the 'seminarian professors' are OK. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Cekada is behind Cicada 3301. Their puzzle for 2016 just came out a few weeks ago. Maybe Cekada changed the spelling of this group so no one would connect it with him.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the humble man who will admit he is not really certain what the present situation is? Sedevacantism is logical toast...as is SSPXism...yet it is clear there is something terribly wrong. No one can perfectly diagnose the problem, nor can anyone say whence will arise a solution. Yet many cast stones and aspersions. Edification from all quarters. Godspeed.
ReplyDeleteThat's all well and good, but the simple fact is that r&r contradicts Catholic teaching and goes against it. SV does not, as far as I have been able to determine, and believe me, I have looked at both sides ever since I found out what was going on.
DeleteGood to see you, Eamon!! :-)
ReplyDeleteAnon 7:28 - Even so, you aren't in a position to ABSOLUTELY & POSITIVELY determine if it contradicts Catholic teaching - & that's the rub - so join the club!
And how are YOU in a position to absolutely and positively determine that no one can make such a determination?
DeleteMea culpa, Anon 6:22. I guess I should have said that only a true Pope speaking ex cathedra can absolutely & positively determine, but then I thought everyone already knew that.
DeleteNo. I was referring to the attitude of many today who, since THEY don't want to take any position or bother to actually study the matter and adopt the inescapable conclusions the evidence points to, they dogmatically proclaim that NO ONE ELSE can or should do what they don't want to do.
DeleteI see this all the time. I know many r&r people who mindlessly keep asking the same old dumb questions that have been repeatedly answered and making the same old thoughtless "objections" that have been refuted so long ago.
The anonymous from January 17th 3:38 is a perfect example. He asked the already-answered question "how will we get a Pope" thinking to himself this disproves sedevacantism, but when he was given the answer, he never replied.