[Pax Vobis]

I don't agree with Father Chazal's material/formal theory... 

Also I don't agree with your view that the Roman Pontiff is a glorified paper pusher. 

I think we agree moreso than you think.  Potato, potatoe.  The differences are very small.

[Pax Vobis]

The Vicar of Christ's Faith cannot fail. Therefore, as soon as his Faith fails, he is no longer the Vicar of Christ, although I do believe that there is a need for some legal recognition by competent Authority that makes it known that this has already occurred. This is in line with Sedeprivationism.  

If you agree with the above statement, then (in general) we agree.  The whole idea behind the material/formal distinction is the principal that 'the Church must act' to make the situation clear, final and 100% certain.  In our present post-V2 situation, the Church has not acted (yet), therefore we wait.  In the meantime, those heretics must be avoided.

[2Vermont]

The above is the type of thinking that is extreme. As long as everyone is quiet and doesn't say anything against sedevacantism, and they don't say much about being subject to the pope - then they aren't heretics.

Warped thinking.

Meg:  do you believe that non-dogmatic sedes believe in a faith that is not the Catholic Faith (ie. "the sedevacantist faith")?  Do you believe they are heretics? 
Please answer yes or no.    

[Meg]

He didn't give a name for it.  He just explained his view, in depth, in the video.  You should watch it - 2 hrs long, but you can split it up.  Very informative, lots of history and he's a good public speaker, so enjoyable.

I will try to watch the first part of the video. I've only seen part 2.

Still, if Father has not said that he is a sedeprivationist, then I think it's premature to designate him as such. You may very well be correct, in that he is a sedeprivationist. But since he has not specifically said so, then there may be a prudent reason for not doing so. Maybe he doesn't want to become the leader of the sedeprivationists. There wouldn't be a moment's peace for him, if he took on that role. Yikes!

You mentioned not long ago that Fr. Chazal's video was the reason for this thread, but actually, that's not true. Fr. Chazal's video was posted by Ladislaus after the thread was created. I started this thread because I think that sedeism (in any form) is over-represented here on the forum, and that it's a threat to the unity of tradition.

Some here of course will not agree, but I, for one, am not a supporter of sedeprivationism, even if Fr. Chazal turns out to be one and has made a good case for it.

Fr. Chazal is quite critical of sedevacantism in general in part 2 of the video. I don't recall that he had said that the problem of sedevacantism exists only with the dogmatic sedes.

[2Vermont]

If you agree with the above statement, then (in general) we agree.  The whole idea behind the material/formal distinction is the principal that 'the Church must act' to make the situation clear, final and 100% certain.  In our present post-V2 situation, the Church has not acted (yet), therefore we wait.  In the meantime, those heretics must be avoided.

It's my understanding that Fr Chazal believes that the pope remains the pope UNTIL the Church deposes him.  This is NOT what Cantarella and the rest of us have been saying.  We are saying that the manifest heretic is no longer pope BEFORE the Church declares it. That is why he can be judged by the Church: he is already no longer pope.

So, no....we definitely do not agree.  Sorry.

[Pax Vobis]

Still, if Father has not said that he is a sedeprivationist, then I think it's premature to designate him as such...Maybe he doesn't want to become the leader of the sedeprivationists.

I think it's because he's not trying to start a movement, or be the leader of some new group, he's just discussing theological opinion.

Fr. Chazal is quite critical of sedevacantism in general in part 2 of the video. I don't recall that he had said that the problem of sedevacantism exists only with the dogmatic sedes.

Fr Chazal's SOLE purpose behind his study and emails is to counter Fr Cekada's dogmatic, 'my way or the highway' view of sedevacantism (see part 1).  It is not to debunk sedevacantism in general, it is to remind everyone that what we are living through can be explained only 'in theory' (by various theologians who disagree) and until the Church acts, we wait.

[Pax Vobis]

Yes, i've argued some of those things but that's what this site is for - debate.  I'm not sure I BELIEVE anything related to this topic 100%.  I'm still learning, studying, debating and re-studying.

[Pax Vobis]

Wouldn't you consider it a stretch to consider Bergoglio to ever have held the Catholic faith?

How could anyone even know this?  Glad you're not an Inquisitor.

[Meg]

I think it's because he's not trying to start a movement, or be the leader of some new group, he's just discussing theological opinion.

Fr Chazal's SOLE purpose behind his study and emails is to counter Fr Cekada's dogmatic, 'my way or the highway' view of sedevacantism (see part 1).  It is not to debunk sedevacantism in general, it is to remind everyone that what we are living through can be explained only 'in theory' (by various theologians who disagree) and until the Church acts, we wait.

Just because his sole purpose was to counter Fr. Cekada's form of sedevacantism....how does this infer that Fr. Chazal is fine with other forms? He wanted to counter the worst form, but I don't think this necessarily means that he's fine with the other forms, unless he has stated this specifically. Has he?

[Pax Vobis]

Watch. the. video.

[2Vermont]

Obviously.  The only ones, so far, have been 'LastDays' and 'AnEvenSeven'.

Not necessarily.  You've not called me a heretic, yet you said I was "whining" when I mentioned being called one.  If you don't see the moral problem in calling other catholics 'heretics' over an undecided issue, I don't know what to tell you.  But still, I'm not sure what you believe.

These labels are just meant to show the (potential) extremism in your thinking.  If you reject the #3 error below, then I apologizie.  I've been trying to figure this out and it's not clear to me.

1. If you say you agree with Bellarmine above all other theologians - no problem.
2. If you say you agree with Bellarmine and all other theologians are wrong - no problem.
3. If you say you agree with Bellarmine and all other theologians are wrong, AND that Bellarmine is (basically) the the ONLY opinion of the Church - that is a problem.  (this is Fr Cekada's view)

Good points and I agree, mostly.  Your last 2 sentences show you are missing the entire purpose of this thread and why Fr Chazal spent his time and effort in making his video - which is against dogmatic sedevacantism.  Fr Chazal is trying to moderate the dogmatic extremism of Fr Chekada, +Sanborn, etc - anyone who says that their version of sedevantism is the ONLY version, that it is the Church's version, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.  This is a BIG problem today and it's sinful.  It causes all sorts of uncharity and division in the trad world, in families and between friends.  It causes people to skip mass, causes chapel divisions, and all other sorts of extreme activity.  This is why Fr Chazal is speaking; this is why I'm posting - to get rid of this extremist error.

So, by necessity, those of us who are non-dogmatic about the issue of sedevacantism MUST downplay +Bellarmine's importance because Fr Chekada has put him on a pedastal so high, that on a cloudy day, it's hard to see him.  Fr Cekada has used +Bellarmine as the main opinion in his quest for his "my way or the highway" sede-religion.  This is totally uncatholic and extreme behavior.

All Fr Chazal is doing is putting the brakes on the +Bellarmine cult that has developed in some areas.  Fr Chazal is reminding everyone that 1) the Church has not decided this issue, 2) there are other theologians who disagree with +Bellarmine and 3) there is no consensus among theologians, therefore, EVERYONE is free to believe what he wants.  Heresy has NO PART in any of this debate.

Can we agree on any of this?  If so, which parts?

Do you even read my posts?  I wrote in a couple of posts earlier:

I don't happen to agree with anyone calling you a "heretic", but when you offer such gems as these [the anti-sede "othering" remarks you've made in the thread], your whining about the dogmatic sedes calling you a "heretic" doesn't garner too much sympathy from me.

In other words, yes, calling you a heretic is wrong, but it's really difficult for me to feel badly about others doing so when you have a habit of dishing out anti-sede remarks. Not having sympathy for you doesn't mean I think it's okay. 

Re: #3: I do not believe that Bellarmine is the only opinion in the Church.  Is that clear now? 
 
Having said that, I am not convinced that Fr Cekada or Bishop Sanborn call those that hold other positions as "heretics". I have listened to a lot of their shows, sermons, etc, and I have never heard them say this.  Remember that they were both SSPX at one time. I don't even think I have ever heard them say that every Novus Ordite is a heretic.  Now, The Dimond Brothers?  That's another story.
  

[Cantarella]

I think it was Ladislaus who at the beginning of the thread said that Fr. Chazal's position resembled Sedeprivationism; but I am not sure about that. This is a Resistance priest and to them, the Pope is still the pope, whereas to sedeprivationists, he is NOT Pope. He has already ceased to be.

It is like the difference between Cajetan and Bellarmine as of the timing of the deposition. In Bellarmine's position the Church does not depose the pope, but it is Christ himself Who does, the Church only confirms the fact. Whereas with Cajetan we would have to wait until an imperfect Council of Bishops deposes the Pope. Vermont explained it right.

[2Vermont]

Meg:  do you believe that non-dogmatic sedes believe in a faith that is not the Catholic Faith (ie. "the sedevacantist faith")?  Do you believe they are heretics?
Please answer yes or no.    

If you don't answer, then the presumption will be "yes".  And that would make you a a hypocrite for calling others extreme and writing the following:

It's not Catholic common sense to anathematize Catholics who don't agree with you.

[Meg]

Watch. the. video.

I will do that. 

[Pax Vobis]

I'm It is like the difference between Cajetan and Bellarmine as of the timing of the deposition. In Bellarmine's position the Church does not depose the pope, but it is Christ himself Who does, the Church only confirms the fact. Whereas with Cajetan we would have to wait until an imperfect Council of Bishops deposes the Pope. Vermont explained it right.

The important phrases are highlighted:  "Church confirms" vs "Church deposes".  Potato / potatoe.  The overarching principle is that THE CHURCH MUST ACT in some capacity.  Before that happens, we cannot say, with 100% certainty, that "pope x is not the pope".  

What we are living through now is the situation where any Tom, Dick or Harry is going around proclaiming there's no pope.  That's not how Catholicism works - there's a process, there's hierarchy, there's order.