Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: AJNC on June 13, 2018, 03:02:19 AM
-
Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal - Print version (book)
https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam (https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam)
AVAILABLE NOW - $10 plus shipping.
: Quidlibet : (http://www.fathercekada.com/)
A Traditionalist Miscellany — By the Rev. Anthony Cekada
- Home (http://www.fathercekada.com/)
- Criteria for Topics (http://www.fathercekada.com/criteria-for-topics/)
- Father Mateo’s Mass of St. John (http://www.fathercekada.com/father-mateos-mass-of-st-john/)
- Manner of Following Mass at Home (http://www.fathercekada.com/manner-of-following-mass-at-home/)
My Response to Fr. Chazal’s “Contra Cekadam”
(http://www.fathercekada.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Chazal-300x194.jpg)Fr. François Chazal
by Rev. Anthony Cekada
FATHER FRANÇOIS Chazal is former member of the Society of St. Pius X who left the organization several years ago when the prospect of an SSPX-Vatican deal looked particularly likely, and with a number of other similarly-minded ex-SSPX priests, formed a loose association of priests known as “the Resistance.”
The Resistance priests maintain they are carrying on the authentic teaching of SSPX founder Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, which was to “recognize” the Vatican II popes as true popes, but to resist on a case-by-case basis papally-approved teachings, laws and commands that the archbishop and others decided were evil or erroneous.
This position is now generally referred to as “R&R” or “Recognize and Resist” — a label, by the way, that I myself coined in a December 2005 article (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Resist-Franken-P.pdf) in The Remnant. Several years ago, I circulated a video which summed up the position as The Pope Speaks: You Decide: Traditionalists Who Destroy the Papacy (https://youtu.be/hp9vQJhJE8o?list=PLbMSr0sdX4jBEh9Uq4xxKNmYIb7KogeFE).
As I and others have repeatedly pointed out, the R&R position simply cannot be reconciled with traditional Catholic teaching on the indefectibility and the infallibility of the Church. Once you say (as all traditionalists do) that the officially-approved post-Vatican II teachings contain error or evil, the only logical conclusion you can come to is that the men who promulgated them had no authority when they did so — sedevacantism, in other words. Otherwise, you wind up with a defecting Church.
(http://www.fathercekada.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/TradsInfallCover_1024x1024-177x300.jpg)I made this argument in a 1995 article Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf) (since revised in 2006), which has since then been widely circulated as a booklet (at least 30,000 copies) and on the internet.
No one that I know of on the R&R side has, in all these years, published a credible refutation of this rather short work.
When a correspondent of mine challenged Fr. Chazal to do so, Fr. Chazal produced a seven-part, thirty-nine page monograph entitled “Contra Cekadam,” which is now being circulated in installments on the internet.
One would think that such a vast mountain of verbiage would require me to produce an equally prolix response. But no, Fr. Chazal simply missed the point of my argument, and wandered off into the bushes to talk about something else. I don’t feel any obligation to follow him there — or, as Bergolio might say, to “Accompany Fr. Chazal in his journey of discernment.”
The following brief comments to a correspondent will suffice.
• • •
Thanks for sending along the Chazal docuмent. It is hardly, as Fr. Chazal seems to think, a point-by-point refutation of my argument in Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope.
Fr. Chazal’s Contra Cekadam doesn’t even state the argument of the “Cekadam” in question, still less refute it. Here, for the record, is the argument I made in the booklet:
- Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.
- Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
- 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.
- Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.
- 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.
- Canonists and theologians also teach that a public heretic, by divine law, is incapable of being validly elected pope or obtaining papal authority.
- Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. In 1559 Pope Paul IV decreed that the election of a heretic to the papacy would be invalid, and that the man elected would lack all authority.
- Since the Church cannot defect, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we repeatedly encounter is that they proceed from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, publicly defected from the faith, and therefore do not objectively possess canonical authority.
If Fr. Chazal agrees with the statements in points 1 (the changes are evil) and 2 (and the Church, by Christ’s promise, cannot give evil/error), but he nevertheless still insists the Vatican II popes are true popes possessing authority from Christ, he maintains in effect that the Church of Christ has defected and that Christ’s promises are void.
As for the rest, Fr. Chazal simply:
- Recycles opinions on a heretical pope that were eventually abandoned after St. Robert Bellarmine.
- Attempts to apply criteria pertaining to ecclesiastical crimes when sedevacantists maintain that the public sin of heresy, not the crime, is what prevents a heretical pope from obtaining or retaining the papacy.
- Refloats the phony Adrian VI quote. (http://novusordowatch.org/2015/03/heretical-popes-adrian-vi/)
- Repeats the Paul-vs-Peter canard [see Appendix at end of the post here (http://novusordowatch.org/2016/11/response-schneider-pope-liberius/)] on fraternal correction for a moral fault, which does not solve the problem of the Church defecting wholesale by promulgating theological errors and evil universal laws.
- In his treatment of Scripture as a “refutation” of sedevacantism, ignores St. Paul’s own assertion that he could in fact, “preach another Gospel,” for which even he himself would become “anathema.”
- Recycles supposed incidents from history to demonstrate that there have been heretic popes before, but which incidents (a) are part of the standard arguments of protestants who reject papal infallibility, and (b) have been repeatedly refuted by Catholic dogmatic theologians.
Fr. Chazal’s arguments on each of these points still do not get him out of the theological pickle that points 1 and 2 of my original argument put him in — the Chazalian equation that works out to:
- Evil changes + true popes = defected Church.
Good luck getting out of that one, Father Chazal!
-
by Rev. Anthony Cekada
FATHER FRANÇOIS Chazal is former member of the Society of St. Pius X who left the organization several years ago when the prospect of an SSPX-Vatican deal looked particularly likely, and with a number of other similarly-minded ex-SSPX priests, formed a loose association of priests known as “the Resistance.”
This brings back memories of the days when the former member of the SSPX, Fr Cekada himself, was given the boot by Archbishop Lefebvre when the good archbishop would have no part in the prospect of him and a number of other similarly-minded now ex-SSPX priests formed a loose association of priests known as the "Sedevacantists”.
The Resistance priests maintain they are carrying on the authentic teaching of SSPX founder Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, which was to “recognize” the Vatican II popes as true popes, but to resist on a case-by-case basis papally-approved teachings, laws and commands that the archbishop and others decided were evil or erroneous.
The sedevacantist priests maintain they are carrying on the authentic teaching of the Church, but their position was in opposition to it, so SSPX founder Abp. Marcel Lefebvre tried to teach these sedevacantist priests what the truth was according to the teachings of the Church, but they resisted him to his face and continue to do so, often by falsely referencing the good archbishop as being tolerant and even sympathetic to sedevacantism, portraying the good archbishop as if he regretted expelling The Nine for their sedevacantism.
The rest of his response is the same tired old Cekadaisms.
-
Evil changes if they are binding under pain of sin + true popes = defected Church.
Fr Cekada, I fixed your argument for you. As usual, your original argument was wrong because it was an over-simplification of a complex situation.
If evil changes are not binding, then they aren't from the Church, because the Church does not teach things which are optional. A teaching is either from the Church or it is not. It either must be accepted or it does not have to be. V2 and the new mass are optional and not necessary for salvation, therefore they are not from the official Church, but only the fallible magisterium (which is not official Church teaching) therefore indefectibility is irrelevant to the discussion. Therefore, your argument is wrong.
-
Fr Cekada, I fixed your argument for you.
Except that your "fix" is completely WRONG.
-
This is and always has been the CHIEF FAILING of Father Cekada's dogmatic sedevacantist position:
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.
This is step 5 in his argument. THIS IS DEBATABLE. There are many theologians, in fact the majority, who hold that such a one would have to be declared deprived of office before he's completely out of office. Sedeprivationism is one (very plausible) answer. Even Father Chazal admits in his sedeimpoundism position that these men lack all TEACHING authority on account of heresy. Apart from this, the rest of his argument is quite solid.
-
Since the Church cannot defect, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we repeatedly encounter is that they proceed from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, publicly defected from the faith, and therefore do not objectively possess canonical authority.
This is not the best explanation, this is an explanation you might expect from a priest who had a NO priestly formation - which like the other eight, Fr. Cekada had prior to Econe.
Fr. Wathen states it plain enough.......
"...Contrary to such reasoning, it is within the Conciliar Establishment that one finds the historical and structural continuity of the True Church; even though they are serving Satan, those who hold ecclesiastical offices hold them legitimately. Those who say otherwise have not proved that, because these men are apostates from the Faith, they cannot be considered to hold any offices. "One who is no longer a Catholic," they say, "cannot possibly hold an office within the Church, nor exercise legitimate authority." No, even though these individuals have incurred the censures of the Church's law for heresy, apostasy, the desecration of the churches, the violation of the Sacraments, for these and similar crimes, they continue to be the legitimate authorities of the Church...."
-
Fr. Wathen states it plain enough.......
"Those who say otherwise have not proved that, because these men are apostates from the Faith, they cannot be considered to hold any offices.
Right, this is the same point I was making above on Father Cekada's point #5. This is a disputed question among theologians. Father Cekada claims that "canonist and theologians" teach this ... attempting to give the impression that they hold it unanimously. Father Wathen, on the other hand, gratuitously asserts the opposite, that they CAN hold offices. That's not certain either. Being unable to prove Father Cekada's position is not proof of the opposite position either.
-
Since these apostates hold the offices in reality and publicly, then until they are removed PUBLICLY, they still hold the office. It’s that simple.
If Fr Cekada wants to argue they have lost their office automatically, the burden of proof is on him to prove it, in the absence of Church legal process. And he has yet to prove it with certainty.
-
Since these apostates hold the offices in reality and publicly, then until they are removed PUBLICLY, they still hold the office. It’s that simple.
No, it is most certainly not that simple. I love how you think that claiming something and adding "It's that simple" somehow makes your assertion true and proven.
cuм ex actually stated the exact opposite of what you're saying.
-
Obviously there is debate on what cuм Ex means. If there was no debate, then BOOM, we are all sedevacant, no ifs, ands or buts. Yet, if there is still debate on what cuм Ex means, as Fr Chazal is arguing, then the burden of proof is still on the prosecution (i.e. sedes/Fr Cekada) to prove, beyond a doubt, that there is no pope and/or that most of the church offices are vacant.
-
No, it is most certainly not that simple. I love how you think that claiming something and adding "It's that simple" somehow makes your assertion true and proven.
cuм ex actually stated the exact opposite of what you're saying.
In the meantime the reputed website catholic-hierarchy.org states of Archbishop Marcel François Lefebvre that he "left the Church"
-
No, it is most certainly not that simple. I love how you think that claiming something and adding "It's that simple" somehow makes your assertion true and proven.
cuм ex actually stated the exact opposite of what you're saying.
The problem with cuм ex is, if everything it says pertaining to lost offices is in fact still in force or is divine law as the sedes believe, then there has been no Catholic Church on earth for the last 60 years for certain, more likely the last 400 or 500 years - at least.
cuм ex:
Anysoever who, before this date [or shall in the future], have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith.....
If cuм ex is in fact the law, then it absolutely applies to +ABL who signed the docuмents and said the NOM, to "The Nine" who all studied NO theology at NO universities, to +Thuc and all V2 attendees, to everyone who has ever spoken with a NO priest or went to a NOM. They all lost their offices. This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.
Where does it end? Where does it start? According to cuм ex, it can be argued that St. Paul was an invalid Apostle since "before this date", he not only deviated from the Catholic faith, he persecuted those who held it.
-
Since these apostates hold the offices in reality and publicly, then until they are removed PUBLICLY, they still hold the office. It’s that simple.
And who do you suppose is going to "remove" them publicly? The apostate (mason) they themselves have maneuvered to place in the Papal Office?
-
And who do you suppose is going to "remove" them publicly? The apostate (mason) they themselves have maneuvered to place in the Papal Office?
Cantarella,
Where that image of Our Blessed Mother from?
-
Obviously there is debate on what cuм Ex means.
Obviously, and that was precisely my point. It's not just "that simple" that the See is still occupied.
-
My point is that if one wants to make the argument, like Fr Cekada, that post V2 officials have lost their offices, then the proof must be VERY strong, with a consensus of theologians, and very, very little doubt etc. Because the charges are grave and the implications of the church being pope-less and bishop-less are huge.
Fr Cekada points to cuм Ex as a 'strong proof'. If Fr Chazal shows that cuм Ex's proof is not strong, or is debatable, then the default position is that V2 officials still hold their offices, because they do, in reality, still hold them. Sorta like "innocent until proven guilty". In the absense of an official Church process or procedure to remove someone from office, said person retains the office. This is practical logic. Fr Cekada is proposing a very unique, theoretical and extreme position. Unless proof is undeniable, then we cannot act or accept measures which are separate from ecclesiastical due process. The effects of such rash decisions lead to confusion, chaos and spiritual disarray.
-
My point is that if one wants to make the argument, like Fr Cekada, that post V2 officials have lost their offices, then the proof must be VERY strong, with a consensus of theologians, and very, very little doubt etc. Because the charges are grave and the implications of the church being pope-less and bishop-less are huge.
And the charges are grave and implications huge for claiming that someone is the Pope and yet continuing to operate outside of Communion with him, rejecting his Magisterium, etc. So, what's the IMPLICATION, pray tell, of the Church being without a Pope if you claim that Catholics are free to just blow him off and to be out of communion with him?
-
And the charges are grave and implications huge for claiming that someone is the Pope and yet continuing to operate outside of Communion with him, rejecting his Magisterium, etc.
What exactly are the grave and huge implications for those of us who claim that Francis is the Pope?
-
What exactly are the grave and huge implications for those of us who claim that Francis is the Pope?
To break communion with the hierarchy and Magisterium is no small matter. The fact that you don't understand this tells me all I need to know about you. You do realize, right, that refusal of submission to the Pope is the very definition of schism.
-
To break communion with the hierarchy and Magisterium is no small matter. The fact that you don't understand this tells me all I need to know about you. You do realize, right, that refusal of submission to the Pope is the very definition of schism.
So I'm a schismatic because I believe that Francis is the Pope? I'm pretty sure that you aren't supposed to call those of us who are R&R schismatics. We are not schismatics.
-
So I'm a schismatic because I believe that Francis is the Pope? I'm pretty sure that you aren't supposed to call those of us who are R&R schismatics.
Read my post again, put on your thinking hat, and apply basic reading comprehension skills.
-
Read my post again, put on your thinking hat, and apply basic reading comprehension skills.
Okay, so those of us who are R&R are not schismatics, in your opinion?
-
To break communion with the hierarchy and Magisterium is no small matter. The fact that you don't understand this tells me all I need to know about you. You do realize, right, that refusal of submission to the Pope is the very definition of schism.
Traditionalists reject V2 and the NOM, neither of which are required by the magisterium to be accepted under pain of sin. Therefore, submission is not required, but only 'religious conditional assent'. No traditionalist refuses submission to the pope. We do refuse submission to our local bishops, but their authority is not the same as the pope, so it is a different scenario.
-
Traditionalists reject V2 and the NOM, neither of which are required by the magisterium to be accepted under pain of sin.
Traditionalists are entirely out of communion with and not in submission to the purported hierarchy. Stop it with the "pain of sin" nonsense. No theologian has ever applied the "pain of sin" litmus test to distinguish different types of Magisterium. With the exception of explicit anathemas, no pope has ever used the expression "under pain of sin" to qualify his teaching.
-
Any official teaching proposed by the Magisterium as doctrine MUST be held under pain of sin, by definition. If one denies doctrine, they go to hell as a heretic.
Such teachings which are not doctrine, such as the idea of limbo, do not have to be held to get to heaven, therefore the magisterium does not require doctrinal submission to this teaching. V2 does not require doctrinal submission, as ALL of the popes have confirmed and all theologians interviewed about it have confirmed. Therefore there's nothing to submit to.
Your interpretation of the level of teaching authority of V2 is in error.
-
Any official teaching proposed by the Magisterium as doctrine MUST be held under pain of sin, by definition. If one denies doctrine, they go to hell as a heretic.
Such teachings which are not doctrine, such as the idea of limbo, do not have to be held to get to heaven, therefore the magisterium does not require doctrinal submission to this teaching. V2 does not require doctrinal submission, as ALL of the popes have confirmed and all theologians interviewed about it have confirmed. Therefore there's nothing to submit to.
Your interpretation of the level of teaching authority of V2 is in error.
So 99.5% of the Magisterium could theoretically be wrong ... according to you.
-
Okay, so those of us who are R&R are not schismatics, in your opinion?
If you follow the notion of reading the council "in the light of tradition", and feel free to pick and choose what you accept and what you don't, you are acting according to a schismatic spirit, at the least. Being R&R, you are accepting a lot more than just the pope, and whether he is schismatic or heretical in his doctrine is another issue.
-
We do refuse submission to our local bishops, but their authority is not the same as the pope, so it is a different scenario.
In matters of the Vatican II doctrines, refusing submission to the Bishops is exactly the same as refusing the pope. in that they teach and agree with the pope on this, they are a one teaching authority, to which you are refusing submission.
You can only kick the can so far down the road, before you have to deal with whether or not he has the authority of a pope.
You have to stand and say that he does or he does not. It is the illusion that R&R has generated and maintains that you can put this question on hold indefinitely. To do so is not and honest way of being.
I do not agree with the sedes on there ultimate goals and aims but at least they face this question honestly and answer it and live by that standard. Calling sedes names and disputing them brings you no closer to your answer. It is only another reason to put off the inevitable reckoning.
-
If you follow the notion of reading the council "in the light of tradition", and feel free to pick and choose what you accept and what you don't, you are acting according to a schismatic spirit, at the least. Being R&R, you are accepting a lot more than just the pope, and whether he is schismatic or heretical in his doctrine is another issue.
You seem to be making an assumption that those who are R&R believe in accepting parts of the Council, and that to do so is schismatic. You have certain requirements for what is or is not schismatic, and you judge others accordingly.
However, since we are in a Crisis situation in the Church, not everything is going to be black-and-white.
-
And the charges are grave and implications huge for claiming that someone is the Pope and yet continuing to operate outside of Communion with him, rejecting his Magisterium, etc.
It's totally hypocritical to claim that he is the pope when they do not believe it themselves. One has to be honest with themselves, there's no way Bergolio is a pope, how that could be is a mystery to me, so I say I have serious doubts. The total answer is not coming from the Cekada's or the R&R, they both have a niche business to protect.
-
All of you who charge that R&R refuses submission to the magisterium love to speak in generalities and be non-specific. You hold V2 as required for salvation when even the V2 authorities do not do so. You claim schism yet V2 authorities say the opposite. You claim to refuse the NOM is to be “out of communion” with new-Rome, yet such a term is modernistic, ambiguous and undefinable.
All of you should go to another site; not sure why you’re here except to whine and moan. Unless and until you prove that one who holds the R&R view commits a sin, then at the end of the day, who cares if such a view doesn’t quite “make sense”? Just because one can’t explain something fully doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Traditionism, by nature, is a catholic living in a war zone, making the best decisions they can, based on the limited knowledge and training they have.
The V2 officials are devious snakes, who speak ambiguously, contradictorily and generally, in an effort to confuse - their greatest weapon. One official will say one thing and another will say another, both claiming they agree. In the face of such lies and ‘diabolical disorientation’ as Sr Lucy called it, one must act as they can, with ‘avoiding sin’ being the baseline measure of orthodoxy and keeping the faith. If such actions by Trads are not sinful, then in the face of extreme duress and facing obstacles and events which are unique in all of Church history, I have no doubt that God will have the utmost mercy and leniancy on all of us in regards to our actions towards Roman officials, many of whom can’t be trusted nor do they deserve respect, though we still give it to their office.
So, I say, your charges of schism and heresy and whatever else are short-sighted, without specifics and also based on circuмstances which do not exist anymore. A soldier lost behind enemy lines, after his entire platoon is shot dead, is not charged with AWOL and thrown in prison for insubordination because he got lost and missed the helicopter ride out. Circuмstances can alter what is required and what one’s duty is, under the law. Even canon law spells this out. In the same way, lay folk and simple priests, who are living in a spiritual war zone, with no day-to-day leadship, nor guidance available from Rome, are given much leeway in making decisions, especially when the “generals” or “captains” of their army are traitors and infiltrators.
-
Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal - Print version (book)
https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam (https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam)
AVAILABLE NOW - $10 plus shipping.
: Quidlibet : (http://www.fathercekada.com/)
A Traditionalist Miscellany — By the Rev. Anthony Cekada
- Home (http://www.fathercekada.com/)
- Criteria for Topics (http://www.fathercekada.com/criteria-for-topics/)
- Father Mateo’s Mass of St. John (http://www.fathercekada.com/father-mateos-mass-of-st-john/)
- Manner of Following Mass at Home (http://www.fathercekada.com/manner-of-following-mass-at-home/)
My Response to Fr. Chazal’s “Contra Cekadam”
(http://www.fathercekada.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Chazal-300x194.jpg)Fr. François Chazal
by Rev. Anthony Cekada
FATHER FRANÇOIS Chazal is former member of the Society of St. Pius X who left the organization several years ago when the prospect of an SSPX-Vatican deal looked particularly likely, and with a number of other similarly-minded ex-SSPX priests, formed a loose association of priests known as “the Resistance.”
The Resistance priests maintain they are carrying on the authentic teaching of SSPX founder Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, which was to “recognize” the Vatican II popes as true popes, but to resist on a case-by-case basis papally-approved teachings, laws and commands that the archbishop and others decided were evil or erroneous.
This position is now generally referred to as “R&R” or “Recognize and Resist” — a label, by the way, that I myself coined in a December 2005 article (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Resist-Franken-P.pdf) in The Remnant. Several years ago, I circulated a video which summed up the position as The Pope Speaks: You Decide: Traditionalists Who Destroy the Papacy (https://youtu.be/hp9vQJhJE8o?list=PLbMSr0sdX4jBEh9Uq4xxKNmYIb7KogeFE).
As I and others have repeatedly pointed out, the R&R position simply cannot be reconciled with traditional Catholic teaching on the indefectibility and the infallibility of the Church. Once you say (as all traditionalists do) that the officially-approved post-Vatican II teachings contain error or evil, the only logical conclusion you can come to is that the men who promulgated them had no authority when they did so — sedevacantism, in other words. Otherwise, you wind up with a defecting Church.
(http://www.fathercekada.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/TradsInfallCover_1024x1024-177x300.jpg)I made this argument in a 1995 article Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf) (since revised in 2006), which has since then been widely circulated as a booklet (at least 30,000 copies) and on the internet.
No one that I know of on the R&R side has, in all these years, published a credible refutation of this rather short work.
When a correspondent of mine challenged Fr. Chazal to do so, Fr. Chazal produced a seven-part, thirty-nine page monograph entitled “Contra Cekadam,” which is now being circulated in installments on the internet.
One would think that such a vast mountain of verbiage would require me to produce an equally prolix response. But no, Fr. Chazal simply missed the point of my argument, and wandered off into the bushes to talk about something else. I don’t feel any obligation to follow him there — or, as Bergolio might say, to “Accompany Fr. Chazal in his journey of discernment.”
The following brief comments to a correspondent will suffice.
• • •
Thanks for sending along the Chazal docuмent. It is hardly, as Fr. Chazal seems to think, a point-by-point refutation of my argument in Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope.
Fr. Chazal’s Contra Cekadam doesn’t even state the argument of the “Cekadam” in question, still less refute it. Here, for the record, is the argument I made in the booklet:
- Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.
- Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
- 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.
- Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.
- 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.
- Canonists and theologians also teach that a public heretic, by divine law, is incapable of being validly elected pope or obtaining papal authority.
- Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. In 1559 Pope Paul IV decreed that the election of a heretic to the papacy would be invalid, and that the man elected would lack all authority.
- Since the Church cannot defect, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we repeatedly encounter is that they proceed from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, publicly defected from the faith, and therefore do not objectively possess canonical authority.
If Fr. Chazal agrees with the statements in points 1 (the changes are evil) and 2 (and the Church, by Christ’s promise, cannot give evil/error), but he nevertheless still insists the Vatican II popes are true popes possessing authority from Christ, he maintains in effect that the Church of Christ has defected and that Christ’s promises are void.
As for the rest, Fr. Chazal simply:
- Recycles opinions on a heretical pope that were eventually abandoned after St. Robert Bellarmine.
- Attempts to apply criteria pertaining to ecclesiastical crimes when sedevacantists maintain that the public sin of heresy, not the crime, is what prevents a heretical pope from obtaining or retaining the papacy.
- Refloats the phony Adrian VI quote. (http://novusordowatch.org/2015/03/heretical-popes-adrian-vi/)
- Repeats the Paul-vs-Peter canard [see Appendix at end of the post here (http://novusordowatch.org/2016/11/response-schneider-pope-liberius/)] on fraternal correction for a moral fault, which does not solve the problem of the Church defecting wholesale by promulgating theological errors and evil universal laws.
- In his treatment of Scripture as a “refutation” of sedevacantism, ignores St. Paul’s own assertion that he could in fact, “preach another Gospel,” for which even he himself would become “anathema.”
- Recycles supposed incidents from history to demonstrate that there have been heretic popes before, but which incidents (a) are part of the standard arguments of protestants who reject papal infallibility, and (b) have been repeatedly refuted by Catholic dogmatic theologians.
Fr. Chazal’s arguments on each of these points still do not get him out of the theological pickle that points 1 and 2 of my original argument put him in — the Chazalian equation that works out to:
- Evil changes + true popes = defected Church.
Good luck getting out of that one, Father Chazal!
.
Thought you might like to know, my finger was hovering over my laptop mousepad after selecting this thread and the mouse arrow pointer remaining in the same place on my screen after the thread came up was pointing exactly on the DOWNTHUMB icon, and my finger twitched without my knowledge and I saw the "3" turn into a "4" before my eyes. I did not intend to downthumb your OP but that's what the system recorded, nonetheless. It's a direct consequence of the thread selection icon under "Last Posts" being located in the same vertical zone (1" from right edge) where the downthumb icons are located for all the posts, and a swath from 1" to 1-1/2" from the right edge of the thread's window.
.
If only the thumb icon was active, not the down arrow or the digit count, this system error would not have happened.
-
No, it is most certainly not that simple. I love how you think that claiming something and adding "It's that simple" somehow makes your assertion true and proven.
.
Oddly when flat-earthers do that you have no problem with it. Interesting. It's that simple.
-
According to cuм ex, it can be argued that St. Paul was an invalid Apostle since "before this date", he not only deviated from the Catholic faith, he persecuted those who held it.
.
And therefore, St. Thomas Aquinas, the acclaimed "Angelic Doctor" of the Church, who lived and died before cuм Ex came to pass, by referring to St. Paul repeatedly as "the Apostle" was repeatedly wrong, wrong, wrong, etc.
-
All of you who charge that R&R refuses submission to the magisterium love to speak in generalities and be non-specific. You hold V2 as required for salvation when even the V2 authorities do not do so. You claim schism yet V2 authorities say the opposite. You claim to refuse the NOM is to be “out of communion” with new-Rome, yet such a term is modernistic, ambiguous and undefinable.
All of you should go to another site; not sure why you’re here except to whine and moan. Unless and until you prove that one who holds the R&R view commits a sin, then at the end of the day, who cares if such a view doesn’t quite “make sense”? Just because one can’t explain something fully doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Traditionism, by nature, is a catholic living in a war zone, making the best decisions they can, based on the limited knowledge and training they have.
The V2 officials are devious snakes, who speak ambiguously, contradictorily and generally, in an effort to confuse - their greatest weapon. One official will say one thing and another will say another, both claiming they agree. In the face of such lies and ‘diabolical disorientation’ as Sr Lucy called it, one must act as they can, with ‘avoiding sin’ being the baseline measure of orthodoxy and keeping the faith. If such actions by Trads are not sinful, then in the face of extreme duress and facing obstacles and events which are unique in all of Church history, I have no doubt that God will have the utmost mercy and leniancy on all of us in regards to our actions towards Roman officials, many of whom can’t be trusted nor do they deserve respect, though we still give it to their office.
So, I say, your charges of schism and heresy and whatever else are short-sighted, without specifics and also based on circuмstances which do not exist anymore. A soldier lost behind enemy lines, after his entire platoon is shot dead, is not charged with AWOL and thrown in prison for insubordination because he got lost and missed the helicopter ride out. Circuмstances can alter what is required and what one’s duty is, under the law. Even canon law spells this out. In the same way, lay folk and simple priests, who are living in a spiritual war zone, with no day-to-day leadship, nor guidance available from Rome, are given much leeway in making decisions, especially when the “generals” or “captains” of their army are traitors and infiltrators.
Even though I whole heartedly disagree with you on certain points... a big thumbs up on this post! 🖒
-
.
Oddly when flat-earthers do that you have no problem with it. Interesting. It's that simple.
:laugh2:
-
You claim schism yet V2 authorities say the opposite.
The V2 authorities, your local bishop and the popes have always said the SSPX is in schism. It is only recently that the B16 and Bergolio have toned it down, but the vast majority of diocese bishops still call the SSPX in schism.
Not that anyone cares what they call us, as they are all heretics and schismatics from the true faith.
-
So, I say, your charges of schism and heresy and whatever else are short-sighted, without specifics and also based on circuмstances which do not exist anymore. A soldier lost behind enemy lines, after his entire platoon is shot dead, is not charged with AWOL and thrown in prison for insubordination because he got lost and missed the helicopter ride out. Circuмstances can alter what is required and what one’s duty is, under the law. Even canon law spells this out. In the same way, lay folk and simple priests, who are living in a spiritual war zone, with no day-to-day leadship, nor guidance available from Rome, are given much leeway in making decisions, especially when the “generals” or “captains” of their army are traitors and infiltrators.
Are the docuмents of the council any less erroneous, heretical, and blasphemous today that they were in 1962? Is the new mass any more orthodox and less injurious to souls?
Then circuмstances have not changed as to why the principles being involved should be abandoned or modified.
One's duty under the law is to oppose with all our might, these errors and heterodoxy in the Church and in our midst.
That burden is not lessened by time or circuмstance.
And you are correct in saying that there is no day to day leadership, in fact there is no substantial leadership at all. We are on our own and that is not the time to compromise on doctrine and the principles that are in use to preserve that doctrine and orthodoxy.
-
You hold V2 as required for salvation when even the V2 authorities do not do so. You claim schism yet V2 authorities say the opposite.
Straw man. Nobody says that. Only dogma is STRICTLY-SPEAKING necessary to avoid heresy. But one can commit other grave sins against the faith by rejecting lesser truths and lesser teachings of the Magisterium.
You keep making stuff up about "pain of sin" and "required for salvation" criteria as requirements for submission to the Magisterium. Those criteria are novelties ... which you pulled out of thin air to justify R&R.
-
.
Oddly when flat-earthers do that you have no problem with it. Interesting. It's that simple.
That's a blatant lie. I made several posts specifically questioning oversimplifications made in certain flat earth arguments. You just have some emotional problem with flat earth that makes you not be able to see that issue rationally.
-
The V2 authorities, your local bishop and the popes have always said the SSPX is in schism.
Firstly, any local bishop, or even archbishop is not a vatican official, they have no training or authority to condemn anyone a schismatic. Any such condemnation requires due process which does not happen at the diocesan level, but only when roman officials are involved, whose job it is to study such circuмstances. So any comments by local bishops, outside of saying that the 4 bishops are excommunicated (which rome has made clear...but has since recinded), are incorrect. Even Bishop Hoyos, I believe, has said multiple times in public interviews that the sspx is not schismatic. He has only ever said they are "not in full communion with rome" which phrase "full communion" is novel, ambiguous and imprecise. Modernists at their best!
In regards to roman officials, it depends on the reason for why they would label the sspx schismatic. The only reason they ever bring up are the consecrations of '88. New-rome has NEVER said that the masses, sacraments, etc are schismatic. They only mention the 4 bishops and their 'disobedience'.
So the sspx bishops are arguably schismatic, though they have never been formally called so by rome, so the argument is weak. (If one assumes that there was not an 'emergency reason' to provide the sacraments, as allowed/encouraged by canon law, one could argue their consecratory act was schismatic. But since there was an emergency reason, then that argument is moot. The local bishops only made such extreme accusations of schism and excommunication to keep the "V2 faithful" from waking up - to shock them - so that the sspx wouldn't grow. It was mostly a PR campaign to keep the sheeple in line. V2 knows that the sspx's masses and sacraments aren't schismatic and has never formally said so.)
The main purpose of the sspx (and tradition), i.e. to keep the Faith by practicing the pre-V2 religion, is not schismatic, only the 4 bishops are possibly schismatic. BIG DIFFERENCE.
And here's why the 4 bishops are not in schism, or why it doesn't affect the laity who attend the sspx:
1. SALUS ANIMARUM SUPREMA LEX - "The salvation of souls is the highest law". This means that the Church makes very, VERY many allowances so that catholics can make it to heaven. This is why She allows even excommunicated clergy to provide the sacraments, in danger of death, or when no one else is available.
2. Speaking of the 4 excommunicated bishops (and even their priests). The code of 1917 canon law allows for the providing of the sacraments, if there is no one else to provide. Can trads receive the old rites and a non-indult TLM from their local diocese? Nope. So, the sspx (and all other traditional priests) are fulfiling a need and are allowed by canon law to do so.
Canon 2261.2-3, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “… The Faithful may for any just cause ask The Sacraments or Sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, ESPECIALLY, IF there is no one else to give them (c. 2261.2).
3. ‘Necessity makes licit what is illicit.’ Pope Gregory IX: ‘It is true that one sins against the rule who adheres to the letter and leaves aside the spirit’
-
If on rare occasion one might find something that's off in a Magisterial teaching, you respectfully question it through the proper channels ... all the while maintaining a religious submission to the Magisterium in principle. You do not set up Mass centers over and against the official hierarchy. Not unless you have at least some positive doubts about their authority and/or their legitimacy. Overall, however, the Magisterium must be regarded as substantially free from any serious error and infallibly safe.
THIS is the Catholic attitude towards the Magisterium (Msgr. Fenton):
[Catholic theologians] all insist that even in this [non-infallible] portion of his ordinary magisterium the Holy Father has the right to demand, and actually has demanded, a definite and unswerving internal assent to his teaching from all Catholics.
...
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
You need to read this over and over again, mediate about it, and pray about it.
-
But one can commit other grave sins against the faith by rejecting lesser truths and lesser teachings of the Magisterium.
More generalities which do not further the discussion...BE SPECIFIC.
If you charge R&R (or the sspx, or whatever) with disobeying the magisterium, tell me exactly where they do so. I've posted quote after quote (in other posts) where new-rome officials have said that V2 only requires 'religious conditional assent' and they admit it can be questioned. You, however, say that one who does not accept V2 is "refusing submission".
They say that only CONDITIONAL submission is required. You over-generalize and refuse to admit that "conditions" exist. You erroneouly hold V2's magisterium to a higher teaching authority than new-rome does. This is the point.
-
More generalities which do not further the discussion...BE SPECIFIC.
If you charge R&R (or the sspx, or whatever) with disobeying the magisterium, tell me exactly where they do so. I've posted quote after quote (in other posts) where new-rome officials have said that V2 only requires 'religious conditional assent' and they admit it can be questioned. You, however, say that one who does not accept V2 is "refusing submission".
They say that only CONDITIONAL submission is required. You over-generalize and refuse to admit that "conditions" exist. You erroneouly hold V2's magisterium to a higher teaching authority than new-rome does. This is the point.
Pax, poor lad cannot say it plain on CI without breaking the rule, so he only mouths the same ambiguous saying: "the V2 authorities, your local bishop and the popes have always said - the SSPX [and basically all trads] is in schism" - as LastTradhican correctly said.
The V2 authorities would never be specific either, they all said the exact same thing poor lad says, and many hold outs who actually bought it ended up going NO. He's only parroting the V2 authorities and some of the 20th century theologians who helped usher in the NO.
-
You do not set up Mass centers over and against the official hierarchy. Not unless you have at least some positive doubts about their authority and/or their legitimacy.
Canon law allows priests to provide the sacraments in 'emergency situations' as I have already posted. Those 1917 canons still exist in the 1983 code. Positive doubts absolutely exist concerning their authority because they have 1) abused their authority by requiring catholics to accept heresy and liturgical illegalities, 2) their legitimacy is in doubt due to the changes in the consecration rites, 3) their orthodoxy is in doubt due to thier modernist teachings, their allowances of public scandal, their promotion of communistic, freemasonic and philosophical errors.
It is clear that you have an agenda, and your arguments against the principles of R&R have been repeatedly shown. "Oh", you say, "there are versions of R&R that I accept," yet you never explain these versions, you just continue to condemn the very foundations of traditionalism. Based on your arguments, traditionalism is sinful, schismatic and should've never happened. You understand all these concepts, but you prioritize them incorrecly and the results are staggeringly incoherant.
-
Not unless you have at least some positive doubts about their authority and/or their legitimacy.
Further, you repeatedly point to the "positive doubts" as a reason to be a sede. You contradict yourself yet again and your logic is retarded.
-
It is clear that you have an agenda, and your arguments against the principles of R&R have been repeatedly shown. "Oh", you say, "there are versions of R&R that I accept," yet you never explain these versions
You must not be paying attention because I have explained this at length several times now.
-
Further, you repeatedly point to the "positive doubts" as a reason to be a sede. You contradict yourself yet again and your logic is retarded.
It would appear that you are the one who's intellectually retarded. Being in a state of positive doubt is not the same thing as being a "sede" (PS everybody is a sede, but you're obviously using that as short for sedevacantist). +Lefebvre and all the SSPX bishops he consecrated have publicly voiced positive doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 popes. I am not a sedevacantist, but have adopted the term "sededoubtist". We're in a state of positive doubt regarding the status and legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants. That creates a condition in which we as Catholics can in good conscience avoid them (cf. Father Chazal). If I believed with the certainty of faith that they are legitimate, I would fight various problems and abuses from within ... while continuing in submission to the hierarchy.
Not only am I not a sedevacantist, I am not even a sedeprivationist. I just feel that sedeprivationism is the most theologically acceptable position to theoretically describe the current situation. But unlike most sedeprivationists, I consider the matter to be in doubt.
-
Being in a state of positive doubt is not the same thing as being a "sede"
You mis-read what I said. R&R exists due to the doubts of the bishops' consecrations, the doubts of the NOM, etc, etc. Sedevacantism exists due to the same doubts. My point is, anyone who is a trad is one due to doubts they have of the orthodoxy of new-rome, whether they are sede or not.
I don't even understand, logically, how you can agree with Fr Chazal yet disagree with R&R. Fr Chazal argues against a dogmatic sede position, which means, logically, that he accepts the pope as the pope, even if he has doubts. +ABL, who I define as being the founder of R&R (just to simplify things), accepted the pope as the pope, but he made many statements where he was doubtful and said he could see why the sede theory had merits. In both cases, Fr Chazal and +ABL recognized the pope and his office, but refused to submit to his errors (which errors only require conditional submission anyway, so not true submission), so how are they different? They might differ on a few specifics, but over-all, it's the same view.
(Now I do think that +Fellays' view of R&R is different from +ABL's, and highly destructive, but that's another topic).
-
Fr Chazal argues against a dogmatic sede position, which means, logically, that he accepts the pope as the pope, even if he has doubts.
No, your logic fails you again. He accepts him as pope in so far as having legitimate election and materially possessing the chair, but not in terms of having teaching authority. So he accepts him but doesn't accept him. Why can't anyone understand basic distinctions?
Also, being against DOGMATIC sedevacantism does not mean being against sedevacantism in general (when held as a non-dogmatic position).
You claim that Fr. Chazal accepts the pope but has "doubts". That is NOT sedeplenism. When Catholics accept a Pope as legitimate, they accept him with the certainty of faith. Accepting him with doubts is NOT actual sedeplenism. It's more of an in-between position which I call sededoubtism. +Lefebvre and Chazal merely resolve this doubt in their favor, at least in terms of material possession of the office, in the practical order.
-
I don't even understand, logically, how you can agree with Fr Chazal yet disagree with R&R.
You have to try to understand, poor lad is a dogmatic doubtist. As such, there is no logic to most of what he says about this subject. Remember, poor lad said (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/msg604966/#msg604966): "And if you don't at least have a positive doubt, then you have no business being a Traditional Catholic, for you are a schismatic."
-
Also, being against DOGMATIC sedevacantism does not mean being against sedevacantism in general (when held as a non-dogmatic position).
Agree, never said that.
All of these sede terms are confusing and unnecessary, imo. I get that they are used to distinguish particular views, but some of them are made up by individuals (i.e. it's not like there is an ecclesiastical dictionary which explains all of this) so different people can disagree with what the definitions are. This is problematic in some ways.
Here's my question (which you didn't answer): In both cases, Fr Chazal and +ABL recognize the pope and his office, but refused to submit to his errors (which errors only require conditional submission anyway, so not true submission), so how are they different?
-
Here's my question (which you didn't answer): In both cases, Fr Chazal and +ABL recognize the pope and his office, but refused to submit to his errors (which errors only require conditional submission anyway, so not true submission), so how are they different?
How are they different from what? From one another? From some other position?
-
You have to try to understand, poor lad is a dogmatic doubtist.
That's an oxymoron ... dogmatic doubtist. Try to read and understand the entire sentence.
-
Novus Ordo and R&R people are dogmatically certain that Bergolio is the pope. The sedevacantes are dogmatically certain that Bergolio is not a pope. Ladislaus does not see a solid foundation in the "dogmatism" of all three groups. I am with him on that.
:popcorn:
-
R&R people are dogmatically certain that Bergolio is the pope.
+ABL was not dogmatically certain, and the sspx under his leadership reflected this stance, so that's not true.
-
Novus Ordo and R&R people are dogmatically certain that Bergolio is the pope. The sedevacantes are dogmatically certain that Bergolio is not a pope. Ladislaus does not see a solid foundation in the "dogmatism" of all three groups. I am with him on that.
:popcorn:
Ladislaus believes that R&R is schismatic and heretical. He's just not allowed to say it outright anymore, so he just "suggests" it now. That's seems like a dogmatic position to me.
-
+ABL was not dogmatically certain, and the sspx under his leadership reflected this stance, so that's not true.
ABL died almost 30 years ago. If you are not dogmatically certain that Bergolio is the pope, you have not the certainty of faith that he is the pope, then how can you say you recognize him as the pope? By what you just wrote, it seems to me that you don't know whether he is or he isn't.
-
Ladislaus believes that R&R is schismatic and heretical. He's just not allowed to say it outright anymore, so he just "suggests" it now. That's seems like a dogmatic position to me.
I guess that some people simply don't understand distinctions. Is +Lefebvre "R&R"? I have repeatedly stated that +Lefebvre's position is neither schismatic nor heretical. And I have explained why. It all just floats over your head or through your ears or something.
-
ABL died almost 30 years ago. If you are not dogmatically certain that Bergolio is the pope, you have not the certainty of faith that he is the pope, then how can you say you recognize him as the pope? By what you just wrote, it seems to me that you don't know whether he is or he isn't.
Exactly.
Theologians teach that Catholics need to hold a pope legitimate with the CERTAINTY OF FAITH. Papal legitimacy is a dogmatic fact. If I did not know that Pius XII was a legitimate pope with the certainty of faith, then neither can I know with the certainty of faith that the Assumption is a revealed dogma.
Certainty of faith PRECLUDES ALL DOUBT. You could no more publicly question the legitimacy of Paul VI or John Paul II than you could question that there are Three Divine Persons in God.
Probably fewer than 5% of Traditional Catholics hold the V2 papal claimants to be popes with the certainty of faith.
And this doubt justifies the Traditional Catholics "Resistance" (and this answer's Meg's question from before ... for the 100th time).
-
+ABL was not dogmatically certain, and the sspx under his leadership reflected this stance, so that's not true.
You are correct that +ABL was not dogmatically certain. He repeatedly and publicly speculated that the See might be vacant ... sometimes coming extremely close to coming out as sedevacantist. He never did of course. But, if you look at his speeches and writings, I would guess that he leaned 75% in the direction of vacancy ... but preferred to give the benefit of the doubt to that 25%.
Father Ringrose linked to a great audio from +Lefebvre. He maintains that in principle the Church could not have done these things. Then he speculates about whether Paul VI was drugged or blackmailed or replaced by a double. What's the explanation, he asks? He dismisses these theories and then goes on to explain how sedevacantism might be a possible explanation. +Lefebvre was NOT a sedeplenist. People who knew Bishop de Castro Mayer say that he privately considered it most likely that the See was vacant, just wouldn't come out publicly with it. +Lefebvre, around the time of Assisi, said that he and +de Castro Mayer "preferred to wait" to come out with that opinion.
-
Exactly.
Theologians teach that Catholics need to hold a pope legitimate with the CERTAINTY OF FAITH. Papal legitimacy is a dogmatic fact. If I did not know that Pius XII was a legitimate pope with the certainty of faith, then neither can I know with the certainty of faith that the Assumption is a revealed dogma.
Certainty of faith PRECLUDES ALL DOUBT. You could no more publicly question the legitimacy of Paul VI or John Paul II than you could question that there are Three Divine Persons in God.
Probably fewer than 5% of Traditional Catholics hold the V2 papal claimants to be popes with the certainty of faith.
And this doubt justifies the Traditional Catholics "Resistance" (and this answer's Meg's question from before ... for the 100th time).
Less than 5% of trads doubt the conciliar popes' legitimacy. The 95% of trads who have no doubts probably spend less than 60 seconds a year pondering the question since their resistance arises from 2000 years worth of Church teachings and warnings prior to V2 that condemn the NO, and has absolutely nothing to do with doubting the popes' legitimacy.
-
I guess that some people simply don't understand distinctions. Is +Lefebvre "R&R"? I have repeatedly stated that +Lefebvre's position is neither schismatic nor heretical. And I have explained why. It all just floats over your head or through your ears or something.
The only reason that you believe that +ABL wasn't a schismatic or heretic is because you believe that he was a sedewhatever, like yourself, and that he wasn't R&R. You have explained this before. I understand the distinction. I just don't agree with it.
-
Less than 5% of trads doubt the conciliar popes' legitimacy.
Nonsense. I guess that +Lefebvre was in that "5%" then.
-
The 95% of trads who have no doubts probably spend less than 60 seconds a year pondering the question
This is probably closer to the truth. Many just don't think about it. But if you put the question to them, the answer will be that they're not certain.
In fact, Stubborn, I once asked you directly whether you were as certain that Francis is a legitimate pope as you are that there are Three Persons in God, and you answered no.
-
The only reason that you believe that +ABL wasn't a schismatic or heretic is because you believe that he was a sedewhatever, like yourself, and that he wasn't R&R.
There is no monolithic R&R. Lots of people define it differently. If +Lefebvre is the litmus test for what R&R actually is, then I R&R is not schismatic/heretical.
-
The only reason that you believe that +ABL wasn't a schismatic or heretic is because you believe that he was a sedewhatever, like yourself, and that he wasn't R&R.
I did not know that the term "R&R" was first coined by Fr. Cekada.
This position is now generally referred to as “R&R” or “Recognize and Resist” — a label, by the way, that I myself coined in a December 2005 article (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Resist-Franken-P.pdf) in The Remnant. Several years ago, I circulated a video which summed up the position as The Pope Speaks: You Decide: Traditionalists Who Destroy the Papacy (https://youtu.be/hp9vQJhJE8o?list=PLbMSr0sdX4jBEh9Uq4xxKNmYIb7KogeFE).
How interesting.
-
The only reason that you believe that +ABL wasn't a schismatic or heretic is because you believe that he was a sedewhatever, like yourself, and that he wasn't R&R. You have explained this before. I understand the distinction. I just don't agree with it.
So, let me ask you. Are you just as certain that Bergoglio is the legitimate pope as you are that God is Three Persons?
-
I did not know that the term "R&R" was first coined by Fr. Cekada.
How interesting.
Yes, it's a term only. You'll find a thousand variations on that "position".
-
So, let me ask you. Are you just as certain that Bergoglio is the legitimate pope as you are that God is Three Persons?
Why do you want to know? You're the one who believes that its heretical to believe that Francis is the Pope, and yet not follow everything he says. American sedes believe that they can decide who is or isn't heretical or schismatic.
Fr. Cekada = American
Fr. Chazal = French
The main difference is that Fr. Cekada is American, and Fr. Chazal is French. Sedevacantism and sedewhateverism is an American phenomena.
-
Why do you want to know? You're the one who believes that its heretical to believe that Francis is the Pope, and yet not follow everything he says. American sedes believe that they can decide who is or isn't heretical or schismatic.
Fr. Cekada = American
Fr. Chazal = French
The main difference is that Fr. Cekada is American, and Fr. Chazal is French. Sedevacantism and sedewhateverism is an American phenomena.
Monsignor Guerard des Lauriers = French
Your argument is invalid.
-
Monsignor Guerard des Lauriers = French
Your argument is invalid.
If you want to dignify that by calling it an argument.
-
Why do you want to know?
Why won't you answer the question? Just takes a yes or a no.
-
This would really get under Meg's skin, as well as SeanJohnson's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgcCujfQF0
-
Nonsense. I guess that +Lefebvre was in that "5%" then.
Not nonsense. Out of all the trads I have ever conversed with in the last 20 years, the only ones who brought up the subject of the pope's legitimacy at all, were either already sedes, those who post on forums, or those who've read about it online somewhere. Beyond that, I think the figure for doubters is closer to under 0.5%.
And yes, I had my own doubts for a long time, up until I figured out the Church not only has never taught sedeism, She condemns it as schismatic, and that historical and present reality dictates that the man who sits in the chair is indeed the pope - until proven otherwise, which can only happen if a future pope decides it. And once I saw clear the perniciousness and blatant divisiveness of sedewhateverism, I came to understand that that's the reason why sedwhateverism exists at all.
To go around claiming and talking as if the chair is vacant like the Fr Cekada's of the world do, is inherently iniquitous and all it's good for is to make one's own false conclusion de fide - if not infallible. No good whatsoever can possibly ever come from it.
-
Monsignor Guerard des Lauriers = French
Your argument is invalid.
Yeah, well, he's the one exception. That doesn't make my argument invalid. And I imagine that des Lauriers has a larger following in the U.S. than in Europe. Is that right?
After all, it's all about the FREEDOM to decide who is or isn't pope. The founding fathers of the U.S. would be proud.
-
Watch the video I posted above.
-
After all, it's all about the FREEDOM to decide who is or isn't pope. The founding fathers of the U.S. would be proud.
To say nothing of your freedom to reject their Magisterium and Universal Discipline.
-
To say nothing of your freedom to reject their Magisterium and Universal Discipline.
In your opinion, did +ABL reject the Magisterium and Universal Discipline? Please explain in detail.
Second question, if someone doubts the legitimacy of new-rome, does that automatically allow them to 'reject the magisterium and universal discipline' and not contradict themselves?
Third question, can you name a person, either dead or alive, who holds "R&R" without contradiction and without schism, according to your viewpoint.
I'm really trying to understand what you believe. I need specifics, please.
-
In your opinion, did +ABL reject the Magisterium and Universal Discipline? Please explain in detail.
He held them to be of doubtful authority ... since he held the V2 papal claimants to be of doubtful authority. Consequently, he rejected something he held to be DOUBTFULLY the Magisterium and Universal Discipline.
-
Second question, if someone doubts the legitimacy of new-rome, does that automatically allow them to 'reject the magisterium and universal discipline' and not contradict themselves?
Indeed. There's the old theological maxim Papa dubius papa nullus., that for all intents and purposes a doubtful pope is no pope and cannot have authority. I saw at least one authority on Canon Law explicitly state that one is not a schismatic if he refuses submission to the Pope based on substantial positive widespread doubts about his legitimacy or his person (i.e. whether he's Catholic).
-
Third question, can you name a person, either dead or alive, who holds "R&R" without contradiction and without schism, according to your viewpoint.
I'm really trying to understand what you believe. I need specifics, please.
+Lefebvre (if you want to call him "R&R") and Father Chazal (if you want to call him R&R). Father Schmidberger once articulated a similar position that he doubted legitimacy but gave them benefit of the doubt according to the principle of law melior est conditio possidentis (benefit of doubt leans in favor of the one in possession). In fact, anyone who holds this doubt but just feels that until the Church officially deposes him, he retains a certain amount of status or authority ... is not in contradiction with Catholic principles. I've known people in R&R who think they are not popes but feel that this can only be decided by the Church (a very legitimate opinion). That's my beef with the dogmatic sedevacantists, as I've explained before, since there are indeed uncondemned Catholic opinions that heretics retain office until they're officially declared such by the Church.
On the other hand, if someone says that it's certain with the certainty of faith that these men are legitimate popes, that's when schism rears its head.
-
I agree that at the very least these men remain in office materially until declared heretical or illegitimate by the Church. I strongly lean in favor of the position that they are probably not legitimate popes, formally speaking, that they have NO authority (as per Father Chazal) ... and not that they have authority when they're right but no authority when they're wrong (that contradicts pre-Vatican II theology). But, at the end of the day, I recognize that all these conclusions flow from my private judgment (assessment that V2 contradicts Tradition, that the Novus Ordo Mass displeases God, etc.) ... and consequently all the conclusions remain in that realm and in a state of doubt, not certainty ... and absolutely without certainty of faith. I reject +Sanborn's essay against "opinionism".
-
The main difference is that Fr. Cekada is American, and Fr. Chazal is French. Sedevacantism and sedewhateverism is an American phenomena.
There's sedes in Spain, Mexico, Brazil and many other countries, the Americans like Cekada learned it from foreigners who are now dead. The only reason you know Cekada and the others in the USA is because they write in English.
-
Thanks, Lad, for explaining your views. I think they are overly-complex and unnecessarily so, but that's another topic. It's unfortunate that many of you argue under the assumption that most trads have the knowledge (or care) about the microscopic differences in the sede world and you give labels to each of these differences (which you create yourselves), creating a new language which most are unaware of. And as you said on the Fr Chazal thread, all of these viewpoints (sede-doubtism, sede-privationism, sede...I can't remember them all) are the same, from a practical standpoint.
If you would remember that most catholics don't know about all these terms, you might save yourself a lot of time in the future from debating with people who are unaware of your sede-language.
-
Why won't you answer the question? Just takes a yes or a no.
Because Meg knows she can't answer with an unequivocal "yes" and that would make her what she abhors: another dreaded "sedewhatever".