I would not contrast Father Chazal with "sedevacantists". He's actually saying that the See has been formally vacated while remaining visibly occupied. He doesn't use the term but he's basically a sedeprivationist. And that position if far superior to both sedeplenism and to R&R. In fact, a lot of people claim that they are sedeplenists but in reality are not because they do not believe with the certainty of faith that the V2 papal claimants are legitimate. Father Schmidberger used to famously say that we give them the benefit of the doubt. What doubt? If you have a doubt, then you're not a sedeplenist. If you have a doubt, then you do NOT believe that they are legit with the certainty of faith. And that leads to a papa dubius papa nullus situation. Father Chazal's point is a great one. Why do we feel the need to declare them deposed? He's content with declaring them heretics and declaring their Magisterium and Universal Discipline and Canon Law null and void ... leaving the issue of their occupancy of the See to God's eventual resolution. What's wrong with that? Most R&R believe that those things which are true and good are still binding but those things that are erroneous and bad are not ... leaving it up to private judgment to sift the Magisterium. What's refreshing about Father Chazal is that he does not fall into this non-Catholic trap. He throws it ALL out and declare it null and void and illegitimate due to its contamination with heresy. He's not your typical R&R. And he's not a sedevacantist per se. He's in between, like a sedeprivationist ... and his position makes eminent sense. And he does absolutely destroy dogmatic sedevacantism when he cites authorities who state that Bellarmine's opinion is merely "probable" .. not even certain, MUCH less dogmatic. Cajetan's and John of St. Thomas' position could just as well be true. Really the biggest criticism that sedevacantists have of R&R is Magisterium sifting but Father Chazal eliminates that stumbling block. Why can't everyone unite on these terms?
Your personal and subjective assessment of what sede-subgroup Father Chazal fits into is interesting, but it doesn't have anything to do with what was being discussed, and what my post was about, which you were quoting.
We were discussing how Father Chazal says that there is no mention loss of office for heretics in scripture. He didn't say that they lose jurisdiction, but still retain their office. Nothing about that at all.
Have you viewed that part of the video? I would like to see what you think of everything he said regarding the fact that scripture does not say anything about heretics losing their office.
Topic: How many sedes are logged on to the forum right now? (Read 60187 times)