Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Plenus Venter on February 20, 2024, 07:34:01 PM
-
This is an excerpt from the latest Miles Christi posted by Matthew:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-fr-chazal's-newsletter-for-the-sspx-resistance-in-asia-mcspx/msg928307/?topicseen#msg928307
Can anyone enlighten us on the reported recent split among the followers of Bishop Dolan (God rest his soul)?
The Vigano Effect
he next burning question is whether Abp. Vigano is a sedevacantist or not,
which, in the affirmative, would guarantee a major split in the Resistance.
As I write these lines, another split has occurred in the Dolanist branch of
sedevacantism, which is a splinter with the Sanbornite faction within the
McKenna branch, which is a split within the Thuc line; the Thuc line being a
split with the Mendez line, the Costa Duarte line and other lines which lines,
being non-conclavist, are split with the conclavist (pope-electing) lines of
sedevacantism. Other sedes became house churches, and some outright
schismatics, by joining the Orthodox Church.
But we are happy to see that Archbishop Vigano holds his opinion… as an
opinion, and not as an obligation or religion, as sedevacantists do (“ecuмenical
sedes” are a minority among sedes). Secondly, if convalidated he was, it was
via the line of Archbishop Lefebvre. Thirdly, we don’t see him joining, or
appearing to be joining the Mater Boni Consilii Institute, or any other
sedevacantist contraption. It would be interesting to have his opinion on them.
Fourth, he still grants Francis some administrative capacity within the Cath-
olic Church, like the nomination of bishops, the running of Roman Dicasteries,
refraining to declare that the Catholic Church is bereft of a visible leadership,
even if the one sitting on the throne of Peter is an imposter and tyrant.
Archbishop Vigano is neither committing himself with the so-called “Re-
sistance”, as far as we can tell, let’s be honest. Yet I would tend to believe he is
one of us, because we were never asking anyone to belong to us, and our object
is not to create another contraption outside of which there is no salvation. “He
who not against you is for you,” said the One Who said, “He who is not with Me
is against Me.” What’s the difference? Infinite. He is God, we are dweebs, losers,
for whom He has died on the cross mysteriously. Are we better than St. Paul,
who, when hearing about others preaching Jesus Christ out of envy against
him, rejoiced. It is neither Paul, nor Peter, nor James who baptizes, but Christ.
Our spirit should be that other groups save themselves, adopt a more
reasonable position.
Therefore we just do not understand why other trads fail to rejoice if an
Archbishop, throws away all his previous novusordoities and becomes a
Catholic bishop. “For this I have rejoiced, and I will continue to rejoice,” said
St. Paul once, “as long as Jesus Christ is preached and glorified,” neither of
which Francis does, both of which Carlo Maria is doing. It would be nice if he
pontificated in one of our places, but has he got to? No.
We just hope and pray his seminary will take off, will not be circuмvent-
ed by the devil one way or the other, or that he will not be embroiled into traps
and snares laid down for him. Both him and us, can defect. We are neither the
Catholic Church, which is indefectible, nor are we Christ, who is our everlast-
ing and blessed God. Let us be precise: Archbishop Vigano is with us only in
the sense that he is a Catholic. Abp. Lefebvre insisted that he was not the head
of the Traditional movement, and that he was just a Catholic bishop doing his
duty to speak up, in the hope that others will “stay Catholic” in the process.
His voice still resounds more and more, for he did not speak on his own behalf.
-
This is an excerpt from the latest Miles Christi posted by Matthew:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-fr-chazal's-newsletter-for-the-sspx-resistance-in-asia-mcspx/msg928307/?topicseen#msg928307
Can anyone enlighten us on the reported recent split among the followers of Bishop Dolan (God rest his soul)?
I guess it relates to this comment which comes later in Fr Chazal's bulletin which I don't entirely understand:
As I write these lines, Bishop Sanborn is even
putting into question the validity of Novus Ordo baptisms (to undercut the
validity of the episcopal line of his Dolanist confrere Bishop Rodrigo da Silva,
who just consecrated two non-Cassiciacuм bishops, Bishop Roy and Bishop
Altamira).
How would that undercut the validity of these consecrations?
-
I guess it relates to this comment which comes later in Fr Chazal's bulletin which I don't entirely understand:
As I write these lines, Bishop Sanborn is even
putting into question the validity of Novus Ordo baptisms (to undercut the
validity of the episcopal line of his Dolanist confrere Bishop Rodrigo da Silva,
who just consecrated two non-Cassiciacuм bishops, Bishop Roy and Bishop
Altamira).
How would that undercut the validity of these consecrations?
Was Bishop da Silva baptized Novus Ordo? He's young enough where he likely was. I'd like to see evidence that Bishop Sanborn doubts NO Baptisms, since I've never heard that. I have seen Father Chazal occasionally be incorrect about his understanding of some of the positions held by various SVs ... understandably, since he really doesn't spend much time studying them.
-
As I write these lines, another split has occurred in the Dolanist branch of
sedevacantism, which is a splinter with the Sanbornite faction within the
McKenna branch, which is a split within the Thuc line; the Thuc line being a
split with the Mendez line, the Costa Duarte line and other lines which lines,
being non-conclavist, are split with the conclavist (pope-electing) lines of
sedevacantism. Other sedes became house churches, and some outright
schismatics, by joining the Orthodox Church.
Yet another gross mischaracterization of SVs, making it seem like there are significant numbers, even groups, becoming home-aloners and Orthodox and conclavists. One could easily point out the splitting of the Resistance between the Pfeifferite cult and then Hewko splitting off from Pfeiffer, the bizarre nonsense regarding "Bishop" Moran, the "Bishop of Broadstairs" letter from Fr. Pfeiffer, his consecration via the Palmar-Thuc line (by a Feeneyite sedevacantist bishop), which was botched, and Bishop Williamson's response to Fr. Pfeiffer showing up at his house, Bishop Williamson's letter to Father Hewko about the Eucharistic miracles, the Resistance harboring a credibly-accused sɛҳuąƖ predator in England, Bishops Williamson's latest letter stating that Catholics can receive doubtful Sacraments when "in need" of them (without further qualification) etc. etc. etc. ... the Resistance being a much smaller movement with far fewer adherents and a much shorter history. There aren't even many Duarte Costa types out there, just a small handful here and there. There's also no split between the "Thuc" line and the "Mendez" line, but rather between different priests that happen to derive from those lines.
While I respect Father Chazal, I wish he would stop this puerile divisive nonsense. He's in a position where he could reconcile somewhat with the Sedeprivationist SVs but keeps pushing them away with nonsense like this that, quite frankly, comes across as childish.
-
But we are happy to see that Archbishop Vigano holds his opinion… as an
opinion, and not as an obligation or religion, as sedevacantists do (“ecuмenical
sedes” are a minority among sedes).
This is yet another false statement. SSPV and CMRI are both non-dogmatic SV groups, and +Sanborn's group are sedeprivationist, which position is nearly identical to that of Father Chazal. It's really the Dolanite dogmatists are the "minority among sedes".
-
Thirdly, we don’t see him joining, or
appearing to be joining the Mater Boni Consilii Institute, or any other
sedevacantist contraption. It would be interesting to have his opinion on them.
Fourth, he still grants Francis some administrative capacity within the Cath-
olic Church, like the nomination of bishops, the running of Roman Dicasteries,
refraining to declare that the Catholic Church is bereft of a visible leadership,
even if the one sitting on the throne of Peter is an imposter and tyrant.
Uhm, the Mater Boni Consilii group and Bishop Sanborn's group also grant "some administrative capacity". What's he talking about?
Father Chazal, please grow up and stop this divisive nonsense. There's a lot that can be thrown back into the face of the Resistance if you want to play that game (as listed above), the same stuff that neo-SSPX regularly do use against them ... and yet rational people do not hold it against "the Resistance" because some of them split off and became crackpots.
Father Chazal, you agree with the SVs on the most core principles, that the Conciliar Church is a non-Catholic institution, that Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest heretic ... so why are you being so divisive about academic disagreements, where the SVs adhere to the Bellarmine opinion while you opt for your variation on Cajetain/John of St. Thomas, with privationism on one side impoundism on the other, which should amount to a disagreement among friends who are essentially on the same side where it comes to the core principles?
-
Was Bishop da Silva baptized Novus Ordo? He's young enough where he likely was. I'd like to see evidence that Bishop Sanborn doubts NO Baptisms, since I've never heard that. I have seen Father Chazal occasionally be incorrect about his understanding of some of the positions held by various SVs ... understandably, since he really doesn't spend much time studying them.
This is +Sanborn's take on NO Baptisms:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kwCOZAnN9wU&pp=ygUWU2FuYm9ybiBvbiBubyBiYXB0aXNtcw%3D%3D
Tldw believes at least some are dubious because there was a scandal a while back where NO Priests were saying "We Baptise you" instead of "I Baptise you". So, he suggests one look into their Baptism if by the NO and get conditionally Re-Baptised if it turns out there is something lacking. Also, the video was made 5 months ago, which is before Bishops Roy and Altamira were Consecrated, so I doubt it is to make out these Consecrations as dubious.
-
Uhm, the Mater Boni Consilii group and Bishop Sanborn's group also grant "some administrative capacity". What's he talking about?
Father Chazal, please grow up and stop this divisive nonsense. There's a lot that can be thrown back into the face of the Resistance if you want to play that game (as listed above), the same stuff that neo-SSPX regularly do use against them ... and yet rational people do not hold it against "the Resistance" because some of them split off and became crackpots.
Father Chazal, you agree with the SVs on the most core principles, that the Conciliar Church is a non-Catholic institution, that Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest heretic ... so why are you being so divisive about academic disagreements, where the SVs adhere to the Bellarmine opinion while you opt for your variation on Cajetain/John of St. Thomas, with privationism on one side impoundism on the other, which should amount to a disagreement among friends who are essentially on the same side where it comes to the core principles?
He does that to any other group not aligned with his, so it's not surprising. I'm shocked he even claimed 2 of SSPX bishops are deaf. Seriously, Father? Please substantiate your claims!
-
The OP is unnecessarily divisive. It's unfortunate given this forum did seem to go weeks without one like this.
As for Bishop Sanborn's views on the Novus Ordo baptisms, we did have a thread on this not too long ago. If that was the only question, then it was unnecessary to post the other (divisive) details of Fr Chazal's comments.
Added: By the way, I notice that Fr Chazal states that Bishop Sanborn puts into question NO baptisms "to undercut" the validity of Bishop da Silva's episcopal line as if he took his position just to do this. Bishop Sanborn's views pre-date those recent consecrations, so that would be a false accusation.
-
I just don't understand the point of being divisive when the differences between sedeprivationism and sedeimpoundism amount to academic hair-splitting that should not be an impediment to at least charitable recognition of the other side as a legitimate Catholic response to the crisis. In fact, there's no reason they couldn't even cooperate more closely, since Father Chazal has agreed that Bergoglio is a manifest heretic who has no authority and that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, and to harbor a negative attitude toward those who simply adopt the Bellarmine position regarding the status of Bergoglio. Father Chazal made a big point (with which I agree) that the Church has not decided among the "5 Opinions" (though Vatican I strongly suggests the Bellarmine opinion) and says he's entitled to side with Cajetan / John of St. Thomas. So, then, are the SVs not entitled to side with Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine?
There's absolutely no need for this division over academic trivialities that are far from settled by the Church, and it all appears to be based on "bad blood" from the past that they need to get over. Get over this nonsense. You have souls that need saving.
-
This is yet another false statement. SSPV and CMRI are both non-dogmatic SV groups, and +Sanborn's group are sedeprivationist, which position is nearly identical to that of Father Chazal. It's really the Dolanite dogmatists are the "minority among sedes".
Archbishop Vigano has himself stated that he is not a Sedevacantist, so I am not sure why Fr. Chazal seems to consider him as such.
-
Father Chazal made a big point (with which I agree) that the Church has not decided among the "5 Opinions" (though Vatican I strongly suggests the Bellarmine opinion) and says he's entitled to side with Cajetan / John of St. Thomas.
The Church has indirectly adopted the Fifth Opinion in her teaching that a public manifest formal heretic is not a member of the Church. A member of the Church cannot be its head.
-
Father Chazal, please grow up and stop this divisive nonsense. There's a lot that can be thrown back into the face of the Resistance if you want to play that game
If you keep on reading, he does acknowledge that the resistance, especially in France also has divisions:
To keep myself down a peg or two, I had a trip to France. About Rome, Stalin said “How many divisions?”… and about France, Stalin would say “France? Too many divisions!” And the sedevacantists can also sneer at us who are accusing them to subdivide constantly and infinitesimally, for in France only, we are stuck in the same rut, the rut of high-opinionatedness. “Omnes peccaverunt et egent gloria Dei,” St. Paul would say, all of the French have sinned and are lacking something or the other for the full glory of God. Perhaps it is the result of the confusion at the top of the Church, causing the impossible piecing-together of the different factions, everyone doing as he pleases, conjecturing as he pleases. One needs to be obstinate in the truth in order to challenge an authority that has turned against the truth: the result is that the Devil has picked up this necessity, then swings this attitude on somewhat secondary issues, or issues that could be settled if there was an instrument, like a Roman Tribunal to settle them. In the message of Quito, Our Lady told Mother Mariana to pray for this darkest of times, four centuries away, when the number of people keeping the faith will be so few, and the few left will further divide themselves. etc...