[Pax Vobis]

Myrna, why does the church need theologians if everything is so simple?  Some things are simple, some are not.  

[Meg]

Now, by the pope not being judged, we're not talking about the eternal disposition of his soul but rather about whether he can be judged juridically.

As for the rest, you're in line with Father Chazal's thinking.  He's simply saying that all we have to do from our perspective it so separate from these heretics.  It's not our job to depose the pope and he follows the opinion of those theologians who say we can't.

But how far does the separation from heretics go? Maybe Father doesn't qualify that.

He does say on the video that when the Novus Ordo Filipinos' go to Father's chapel, and they ask him if he's under the Pope in Rome, that Father answers "Yes." He can't really say "NO" without there being difficulties.

I find it interesting, too, that Father Chazal encourages Novus Ordo Catholics away from the Novus Ordo church in the Philippines, and introduces them to tradition. He is encouraging the New Zealanders to do the same (or is it the Australians?). Sorry, I can't remember if the video is taped in New Zealand or Australia. Sedes tend to shun Novus Ordo Catholics, but Father Chazal certainly doesn't. I see that as a good thing.

He says on the video that it's not a good idea to just expect the fish for parishioners from the SSPX (or words to that effect).

[Cantarella]

Wouldn't in reality the definition of a material pope with no formal power be an anti pope? If so, why not address him as such?

The term anti-pope would pressume that there is an already existing, living, and competing Pope somewhere else (in opposition to Francis), which it does not seem to be the case.

[MyrnaM]

Myrna, why does the church need theologians if everything is so simple?  Some things are simple, some are not.  

So far I have not seen any theologians solve the problem, have you?
One does not have to even be a theologian to save one's soul, all you need is to keep the faith believing in what Jesus Christ said about the times we are living in. 

[Cantarella]

Okay... I see.

Wouldn't in reality the definition of a material pope with no formal power be a sede vacante? If so, why not address the situation as such?

Sedeprivationism makes the distinction here because of the fact that the material pope is not yet juridically deposed; so he materially occupies the Apostolic throne. The thesis goes so far as to conclude the material pope no longer has divinely assisted Pontifical authority, and leave it at that.

The way I see it is that fundamentally, the thesis is indeed a form of sedevacantism; but not total, in that the material pope continues to be able to perform certain vital functions for the continuity of the Church, such as appointing valid cardinals, thus allowing a legitimate way to preserve Apostolicity, one of the 4 marks of the True Church.    

[Meg]

Father Chazal, in the video posted on this thread, speaks about the problem with the "immediate loss of office" idea.

He says, at the 1:32:33 minute mark:

"There is something about Divine Right. It is not that we say, I repeat, it is not that we say that they are not going to fall; they fall by Divine Right, but in the time of God's choosing."
------
Father then provides examples, mainly from the O.T, where God removed heretics or those who caused grave scandal.

At the 134:54 minute mark, Father says:

"There is no evidence in scripture for the immediate loss of office for the crime of heresy. We don't find it."
------
Father Chazal then provides good examples for this in scripture. Really excellent refutation of the "ipso facto" view, IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5727&v=zkoG3rznTwQ

[2Vermont]

...and just about there.

Although I agreed with your prediction, it really doesn't take too much to make such a prediction.  Since when has there been any thread involving sedevacantism on this forum that hasn't been pages and pages long? 

[2Vermont]

Father Chazal, in the video posted on this thread, speaks about the problem with the "immediate loss of office" idea.

He says, at the 1:32:33 minute mark:

"There is something about Divine Right. It is not that we say, I repeat, it is not that we say that they are not going to fall; they fall by Divine Right, but in the time of God's choosing."
------
Father then provides examples, mainly from the O.T, where God removed heretics or those who caused grave scandal.

At the 134:54 minute mark, Father says:

"There is no evidence in scripture for the immediate loss of office for the crime of heresy. We don't find it."
------
Father Chazal then provides good examples for this in scripture. Really excellent refutation of the "ipso facto" view, IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5727&v=zkoG3rznTwQ

Since when does Catholicism only involve teachings in Scripture?

[Meg]

Since when does Catholicism only involve teachings in Scripture?

Who said it only involves scriptural teachings? Have you even viewed the evidence provided by Father Chazal? I seriously doubt it. 

Why would you think that scripture is not important at all in refuting the sede ipso facto belief, and that scripture should have no say in the matter?

[Meg]

Could it be because the Church has proclaimed and believes heretics are not in the Church in the first place. It would seem redundant for the Holy Ghost to state the obvious...

In scripture, there is no reference to any loss of office for heretics, in either the Old or New Testament. Do you think that there were no heretics in scripture? Fr. Chazal provides evidence for this. Father knows his scripture very well.

I think that since sedes don't know scripture very well, that they don't want to debate from a scriptural stance.

[Cantarella]

Father Chazal, in the video posted on this thread, speaks about the problem with the "immediate loss of office" idea.

He says, at the 1:32:33 minute mark:

"There is something about Divine Right. It is not that we say, I repeat, it is not that we say that they are not going to fall; they fall by Divine Right, but in the time of God's choosing."
------
Father then provides examples, mainly from the O.T, where God removed heretics or those who caused grave scandal.

At the 134:54 minute mark, Father says:

"There is no evidence in scripture for the immediate loss of office for the crime of heresy. We don't find it."
------
Father Chazal then provides good examples for this in scripture. Really excellent refutation of the "ipso facto" view, IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5727&v=zkoG3rznTwQ

In Sedeprivationism, there has not been a "loss of office" yet, since evidently, the office is still visibly occupied. What has been lost is the pontifical Authority.

[Pax Vobis]

So far I have not seen any theologians solve the problem, have you?

That's exactly the point, Myrna.  We're living through a problem which past theologians could only dream about - it's never happened before and it's very complex, which is why the solution is not simple.

One does not have to even be a theologian to save one's soul, all you need is to keep the faith believing in what Jesus Christ said about the times we are living in. 

Your point is true, but it's irrelevant to the present discussion.

[2Vermont]

In scripture, there is no reference to any loss of office for heretics, in either the Old or New Testament. Do you think that there were no heretics in scripture? Fr. Chazal provides evidence for this. Father knows his scripture very well.

I think that since sedes don't know scripture very well, that they don't want to debate from a scriptural stance.

No, the point is that even if Scripture doesn't mention something doesn't mean it is not Catholic teaching.  You would like to only look at what the Scripture states.  Isn't that what Protestants do Meg?

[Meg]

In Sedeprivationism, there is not a "loss of office", since evidently, the office is visibly occupied. What has been lost is the pontifical Authority.

I don't see that Fr. Chazal has said that there is a loss of pontifical authority. Can you point out where he said this? I haven't viewed the entire video. 

[Meg]

No, the point is that even if Scripture doesn't mention something doesn't mean it is not Catholic teaching.  You would like to only look at what the Scripture states.  Isn't that what Protestants do Meg?

You deny scripture. A lack of Faith will do that to a person.