Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5

Author Topic: Indefectiblity: Fr. Cekada v. Fr. Chazel  (Read 2665 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Indefectiblity: Fr. Cekada v. Fr. Chazel
« on: April 25, 2021, 03:59:56 PM »
I'm reading Fr. Chazel's book Contra Cekadam. I'm right now going through his discussion of the pre-Vatican I theologians, including St. Robert Bellarmine. I find him very convincing.

So, before I finished (and I will), I wanted to get a sense of Fr. Cekada's response, so I pulled that up on the internet. He directly hits what has been shadowing Fr. Chazel's argument as I read:


Quote


If Fr. Chazal agrees with the statements in points 1 (the changes are evil) and 2 (and the Church, by Christ’s promise, cannot give evil/error), but he nevertheless still insists the Vatican II popes are true popes possessing authority from Christ, he maintains in effect that the Church of Christ has defected and that Christ’s promises are void.

http://www.fathercekada.com/2017/08/25/my-response-to-fr-chazals-contra-cekadam/

Again and again and again the real issue becomes indefectibility - as has been shown here lately. Fr. Chazal is very convincing (so far) on the need for a declarative judgment for the Church by its bishops/cardinals (or some competent authority) when it finds itself with a heretical pope.

If he is right, what about indefectibility? What about the "Church" promulgating through the man on the See of Peter errors and evils in teachings and laws?

If he is right, the man on the chair, prior to the declarative sentence, is still a true pope. Impound him - whatever - he is still issuing, or has issued, false and/o evil teachings and laws while in the seat.

So if Fr. Chazal is right, what does that say about the traditional teaching regarding indefectiblity?

Seems to me he can't be right and the traditional notion of indefectibility right at the same time - either must be false.

Not sure if Fr. Chazal deals with indefectibility; I sure hope so.

Thoughts?

Logged

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: Indefectiblity: Fr. Cekada v. Fr. Chazel
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2021, 04:07:52 PM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on April 25, 2021, 03:59:56 PM
If he is right, the man on the chair, prior to the declarative sentence, is still a true pope. Impound him - whatever - he is still issuing, or has issued, false and/o evil teachings and laws while in the seat.
.
No human being has any jurisdiction, whether spiritual or temporal, over a true pope. That means no one can pass sentence against a true pope.
.
This is why the Fathers of the Church don't teach any such thing. They all teach (and St. Robert Bellarmine says it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers) that a pope who taught heresy would fall from office by that very act, and the cardinals would then make a declaration of the fact that he had already lost the papacy and then proceed to elect a pope. But obviously this is only possible if the former-pope had already lost his office before the cardinals made a declaration to that effect and then elected a replacement.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Indefectiblity: Fr. Cekada v. Fr. Chazel
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2021, 04:09:20 PM »
The numbered statement won't come up in the quote from Fr. Cekada. Here they are:


Quote
1. Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil. 

2. Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.

3. It is therefore impossible that the errors evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church. 

Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Indefectiblity: Fr. Cekada v. Fr. Chazel
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2021, 04:11:14 PM »
Quote from: Yeti on April 25, 2021, 04:07:52 PM
.
No human being has any jurisdiction, whether spiritual or temporal, over a true pope. That means no one can pass sentence against a true pope.
.
This is why the Fathers of the Church don't teach any such thing. They all teach (and St. Robert Bellarmine says it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers) that a pope who taught heresy would fall from office by that very act, and the cardinals would then make a declaration of the fact that he had already lost the papacy and then proceed to elect a pope. But obviously this is only possible if the former-pope had already lost his office before the cardinals made a declaration to that effect and then elected a replacement.
Fr. Chazal's heretic pope is still pope until the declarative sentence. He is still "true" pope in that sense. That's all that is meant. 
Logged

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: Indefectiblity: Fr. Cekada v. Fr. Chazel
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2021, 04:17:02 PM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on April 25, 2021, 04:11:14 PM
Fr. Chazal's heretic pope is still pope until the declarative sentence. He is still "true" pope in that sense. That's all that is meant.
.
I'm not sure I follow your point, but no sentence of any kind can be passed against a true pope.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
« previous next »