http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/06/lets-call-this-race-fr-chazal-is-not.html

The letter below from Fr. Chazal, exactly confirms the views that he has communicated to me privately. He has lectured widely on his objections to Sedevacantism of any sort and such positions are clearly articulated in his new book, which I have read. I will try to find my email comments to Fr. Chazal which I sent him when he was in the editing stage of producing his book.

Here is his stated position, now posted on Cathinfo.com:
resistance-bishops-fight-against-sedevacantism

Concerning Father Chazal, he is not sedeprivationnist. Here is what he wrote recently in one of his email (translated from French) : 


Dear Sir,

 One cannot say that the public life of the Church, the apostolic and visible continuity of the Church is something purely material. No, it is something formal, that is to say very real. Pope Francis is a suspect awaiting conviction and deposition.


So, to answer your questions:


1. No, I am not sedeprivationist.
 2. The difference between Cassisiacuм and Archbishop Lefebvre is that we are content to separate ourselves from the conciliar Church and leave to God the resolution of the question of loss of office.


fc +


He also condemned sedeprivationnism in his recent book (Contra Cekadam) against sedevacantism :


* Canon 160, against sedeprivationnism. "The election of a Sovereign Pontiff is guided solely by "Vacante Sede Apostolica" of Pope Pius X", which constitution, on #29 not only exclude canonical or juridical censures, but also any reason whatsoever to bar a Cardinal from active or passive voice in a Conclave. More on this later.


* Hence it is impossible to find any trace of your sedeprivationism in the legislation of the Church, and cuм Ex has fallen out of use, if it were ever used to bar a Cardinal to the Papacy. Fr GREGORY HESSE explained that cuм Ex was not used, save for its principle (that the holding of an office is incompatible with heresy), because of the regrettable tendency of Paul IV to imprison clerics without trial.


The last big problem of sedeprivationnism, is that Cardinals are no Popes, so, even in the theory of sedevacantism, they don’t enjoy immunity; they must be judged. We were told by them that special rules, dispensing from a juridical sentence, apply only for the Pope. With sedeprivationnism that is no longer the case, and therefore all ecclesiastical offices are in doubt the minute an individual Catholic deems the holder to be a heretic. Indeed, many sedes say that Cardinals are non Cardinals, bishops fake bishops, priests false priests. It is the proof that much more is at risk than the sole office of a Pope, but all offices in the Church.

End of Fr. Chazal's email.

Here is my (Dr. Chojnowski's) comments on my thoughts concerning the position he articulates in his new book on the current papacy Contra Cekadam. I came to these conclusions after a second reading of the text.

Dear Fr. Chazal,

I have finished reading over your paper for the second time. I don’t think it would be useful to comment on each page. Rather, when I step back and consider where it  all leads, I am gravely concerned especially in light of all of the theological research that has been done by Fr. Kramer. It seems to me that you are creating a theological position which is schismatic no matter which way you cut it. You do everything possible to argue that Francis MUST BE POPE and that no one can legitimately say that he is not and yet you say that we can legitimately say that we need not listen to the man who we consider to be pope —— I cannot see how we do not totally change the office of the papacy, reducing it to a “card board” pope that is there but he is not one that you have to listen to or obey. This is precisely the criticism of Fr. Cekada who makes much hay about this.

From your own texts in these last pages, it clearly seems as if you accept the Conciliar Church to be the Catholic Church. You criticize the sedevacantists for pointing to the fact that a false and theologically distorted rite is the one created by Paul VI for the creation of bishops and priests. If the priests and bishops are validly ordained and they constitute the real Catholic hierarchy, as Bishop Williamson never ceases to say, why would we have ever gone to the SSPX? Not now but even back then. If the Novus Ordo “bishops” and “priests” — after 50 years of accuмulating apostasy — are still the hierarchy of the Catholic Church then God must lead them and they must guide the Church correctly. But you say that they do not. Where is the protection of the Holy Ghost, then, for his Magisterium? If that is the Church now then the Church is one of heresy and apostasy, liturgical evil, denial of the fundamental moral law, and syncretism. The Church your arguments push us towards is more the Harlot of Babylon than the Immaculate Bride of Christ. But the Church is the IMMACULATE Bride of Christ. In its doctrines, worship and practice it is totally pure of any defect. Are you destroying the very nature of the Church in order to save the claims of Francis?

Also, I have read enough of the Archbishop to know that he would never agree with your position which makes a state of “sedevacante” impossible. He often said that he could reach the point in which he would have to declare the Holy See vacant. He never publicly did, however, he was always on the edge of it.

He clearly knows that a pope cannot be a heretic and still be pope. The Archbishop hesitated to call the Vatican II popes to be heretics because he knew that if he did, he would be declaring the pope to have fallen from his office or as being a usurper. 

I also cannot accept the idea that you can be in the Catholic Church without holding the Catholic Faith in its purity. 

Ultimately the equation: 
Public Heresy + true pope = defective Church 

We need to break out of the “box” of the 90s and rethink all this through again. I think your argument has as its consequence a “justification” for the inadequately thought through mentality we had back in the 90s. 

Yours, Peter

The last big problem of sedeprivationnism, is that Cardinals are no Popes, so, even in the theory of sedevacantism, they don’t enjoy immunity; they must be judged. We were told by them that special rules, dispensing from a juridical sentence, apply only for the Pope. With sedeprivationnism that is no longer the case, and therefore all ecclesiastical offices are in doubt the minute an individual Catholic deems the holder to be a heretic. Indeed, many sedes say that Cardinals are non Cardinals, bishops fake bishops, priests false priests. It is the proof that much more is at risk than the sole office of a Pope, but all offices in the Church.

This is actually a very solid point, one which I myself have mulled over, and I will give it some thought.  I actually have my own spin on sedeprivationism that addresses this problem.  And, the more Father Chazal writes, the more I consider him a sede-doubtist (the term I coined to describe my own position).

Let's take the case of a pre-Vatican II heretic Bishop, such as Cushing in Boston (open manifest heretic).  Given that he was still kept in office by a legitimate Pope, what was his status at the time?  Could Father Feeney have declared Cushing to be void of all authority, set up his own little chapel outside of submission to Cushing, etc?  I'll be pondering this question.  I don't want to open the Feeneyite can of worms here.  I'm sure other examples of pre-Vatican II heretic bishops can be found?

I think we also have to keep in mind that an individual cleric who may or may not hold to a personal heresy is quite different than a cleric who holds to and teaches heresy (supposedly) promulgated by the Magisterium.  Would all of the Arian bishops automatically lose their offices?

I'm not sure that we can apply this to the situation we find ourselves today.

Am I making sense?  

Yes, the Magisterium is a key point.  We hold that the Magisterium cannot produce the magnitude of error that Vatican II did.  But what is the status of an individual bishop heretic?  I would think that these Arian bishops would materially remain in office but would lose all formal authority, especially teaching authority ... which Father Chazal would hold as well.

But take the case of some pre-Vatican II bishop of a diocese.  Normally you would remain in submission to him and appeal to Rome regarding his heresy.

Yet the pope is a completely different case.  By remaining in material submission to a bishop in power from the Pope, you are remaining in formal submission to the Pope.  Bishops derive their authority and jurisdiction from the Pope, but the Pope derives his from no earthly authority.  But the Pope is the root of all authority in the Church.  So perhaps the answer to Father Chazal's objection lies in something that he himself has acknowledge, that the Pope is a completely separate case and that the principles of sedeprivationism only apply to the case of a heretic Pope.

Yes, the Magisterium is a key point.  We hold that the Magisterium cannot produce the magnitude of error that Vatican II did.  But what is the status of an individual bishop heretic?  I would think that these Arian bishops would materially remain in office but would lose all formal authority, especially teaching authority ... which Father Chazal would hold as well.

But take the case of some pre-Vatican II bishop of a diocese.  Normally you would remain in submission to him and appeal to Rome regarding his heresy.

Yet the pope is a completely different case.  By remaining in material submission to a bishop in power from the Pope, you are remaining in formal submission to the Pope.  Bishops derive their authority and jurisdiction from the Pope, but the Pope derives his from no earthly authority.  But the Pope is the root of all authority in the Church.  So perhaps the answer to Father Chazal's objection lies in something that he himself has acknowledge, that the Pope is a completely separate case and that the principles of sedeprivationism only apply to the case of a heretic Pope.

From what I have gleaned over the years, I do think the pope is a different case because God is his only superior.  Loss of office is automatic for a pope because it is God who removes him from his office.  On the contrary, it is the pope who removes individual clerics from office.

I think we also have to keep in mind that an individual cleric who may or may not hold to a personal heresy is quite different than a cleric who holds to and teaches heresy (supposedly) promulgated by the Magisterium.  Would all of the Arian bishops automatically lose their offices?

This is a good point.

It is when the heresy becomes public; when we can identify the false pastors and stop listening to them because they lose their Authority. This is taught by St. Bellarmine.

However, these bihops would not lose their office automatically; but until the Pope removes them.

In the case of the Roman Pontiff himself is different though, because no one on earth has power over him.