Author Topic: Fr. Chazal is NOT a Sedevacantist but is Chojnowski ? (Read 3280 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** June 16, 2018, 09:04:46 AM »

How one resolves the actual problem of the status of a heretic pope should not be of primary interest to sedevacantists.

What most sedevacantists object to is this notion that we accept the Magisterium when we judge it to be right and reject it when we judge it to be wrong. At least Father Chazal completely avoids this problem by stating that they are completely deprived of authority by virtue of their heresy ... even if not deprived of their office (again, strikingly similar to sedeprivationism). These differences have very little practical consequence ... except that it closes off the door to conclavism.

2Vermont · « **Reply #6 on:** June 16, 2018, 09:59:21 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 16, 2018, 09:02:16 AM

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.

Cantarella · « **Reply #7 on:** June 16, 2018, 11:19:09 AM »

Quote

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.

I don't understand Fr. Chazal's condemnation of Sedeprivationism.

First, I don't know why he is bringing up Pius X, Vacante Sede Apostolica, when the Thesis has nothing to do with the election of the material popes itself (which is considered valid).

Second, I don't know why he is bringing up cuм Ex at all. Again, the Thesis does not rely on the invalidity of the elections, but on something else. As a matter of fact, in the writings of Fr. Lucien on the Cassisiacuм Thesis, the argument of cuм Ex is explicitly set aside as "lacking conclusive force", mainly because of the impracticality of proving the sin of formal heresy before the conclaves; and also because cuм Ex has been abrogated.

Cantarella · « **Reply #8 on:** June 16, 2018, 11:26:13 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on June 16, 2018, 08:42:01 AM

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** June 16, 2018, 12:14:01 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on June 16, 2018, 11:26:13 AM

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.

Indeed, a bishop derives office from the Pope until the Pope determines otherwise. But it doesn't work that way for the Pope. Father Chazal admits this distinction early in his reasoning process.

And you're absolutely correct that cuм ex has nothing to do with sedeprivationism.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Fr. Chazal is NOT a Sedevacantist but is Chojnowski ? (Read 3280 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Fr. Chazal is NOT a Sedevacantist but is Chojnowski ?

2Vermont

Re: Fr. Chazal is NOT a Sedevacantist but is Chojnowski ?

Cantarella

Re: Fr. Chazal is NOT a Sedevacantist but is Chojnowski ?

Cantarella

Re: Fr. Chazal is NOT a Sedevacantist but is Chojnowski ?

Ladislaus

Re: Fr. Chazal is NOT a Sedevacantist but is Chojnowski ?