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

Author Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?  (Read 54932 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #35 on: September 23, 2022, 02:26:17 PM »
Hi Ladislaus, I myself am open to Fr. Chazal's thesis. Can you please explain what it is? Is it to say that these vatican 2 popes don't have any authority because of their manifest heresies, but that they remain Pope? Some would say that this contradicts vatican 1. Would this also mean that any act by Francis that is for the common good, would be supplied the jurisdiction?

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #36 on: September 23, 2022, 02:45:46 PM »
the most basic and universal Catholic principle of obedience to God before the pope


Yikes, what??! This is not and has not ever been a Catholic principle at all. The pope is the Vicar of Christ! :facepalm:


Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #37 on: September 23, 2022, 03:03:15 PM »
I'll answer briefly:

1. It's above my pay grade. I.e., not required to save my soul. We're talking about the Crisis in the Church, NOT the Catholic Faith. So yeah, "I don't know", "leave me alone", or even "I don't care" is a valid answer.

2. The default position for a Catholic is not to declare the See vacant, but rather to assume validity. In this way, the Sede position is NOT equivalent to the R&R position, nor is it the "inverse" or a perfect mirror image of some sort. As I've said so many times, the Sede position is like taking an EXIT RAMP from the highway -- the default position is to keep going straight -- to accept that the Pope is Pope. Sedes might like to pretend it's a T-intersection, where some go to the right, others go to the left, and therefore the "move" of R&R and Sedes is of equal fundamental nature. BUT IT IS NOT. By default, we have a Pope. Taking the position the Pope is not Pope is a POSITIVE MOVE. We are not making a POSITIVE MOVE to declare the Pope is Pope, we are actually doing NOTHING. See the difference?

3. However, when the Pope is acting like the last several, one MUST disobey rather than commit sin or lose the Faith. In other words, I do the bare-minimum necessary to keep my Faith intact. That is what +Lefebvre did, and what I think is the most Catholic, safest, most prudent course of action.

4. What the actual truth about the Pope turns out to be? God knows. I sure don't. But at least I won't be punished for calling the Pope names, being uncharitable, burning effigies of the Pope, etc. In short, I'll have nothing to apologize for. God certainly expects me, at this time, to NOT follow the current Popes into Hell itself. End of list. He does NOT expect me to dis-entangle or solve the Crisis in the Church. Give me a break!

5. I'm not dissing or even rejecting Fr. Chazal's position. I just don't have A) the training or B) the objective knowledge of the situation to know if it's correct or not.

6. We shouldn't get the mindset that we need to be wearing the right jersey (having the right opinion on every nuance of the Crisis) to save our soul. Even if I was fervently excited about Fr. Chazal's writings, then what? I still have to choose from the AVAILABLE positions that offer Mass in my country. I can't try to search the world over for a person exactly like myself, who shares all my opinions on the Crisis, denouncing everyone else as a heretic. That's how you end up with cults like the Dimond Bros. or Pfeifferville. Or how to end up very alone, probably despair, and ultimately to lose one's very soul for eternity.

7. There IS a solution to the Crisis in the Church. But given the unsolved-nature of the mystery as of 2022 (around Year 57 of the Crisis) you'll cut me some slack, and admit I'm not crazy for being of the opinion that this Crisis is akin to a supernatural mystery, which mankind cannot solve with his powers of reason and "current available information" alone.

8. It's just my opinion, but if I'm wrong then the ONLY OTHER OPTION is that the Crisis HAS been adequately solved (in a definitive manner, with all objections adequately answered and addressed) but that all the other "positions" are populated 100% by those of bad will. I don't buy that.

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #38 on: September 23, 2022, 03:34:20 PM »
So, the chief problem that some of us have with R&R is that R&R undermines and guts the foundations of the Magisterium and the papacy, throwing the Church under the proverbial bus in order to save Bergoglio et al., to have the comfort of some clown prancing aroud in white vestments.

But Father Chazal has thrown you a lifeline.  By adopting his sede-impoundist views, you don't have to attribute this evil to legitimate Catholic authority and therefore bring ill repute on the Church.

So please explain why you refuse to get behind Father Chazal's position ... which is perfectly acceptable to most "sedevacantists" in that it avoids the chief problem with R&R that most SVs have.  It could also serve as a bridge behind the two camps.

So please explain why, given the Chazal option, you persist in smearing the Holy Catholic Church and the Catholic papacy as being responsible for the evils of the Conciliar erea.  What's wrong with it that you find it unacceptable?

If R&R would rally around Father Chazal, then there's no longer any serious divide among Traditional Catholics, and the major differences would reduce to an academic debate regarding the finer points of sede-impoundism vs sede-privationism.
Father Chazal's position is a reflection of the majority view of theologians and should be the position for faithful Catholics resisting the conciliarist/modernist sect. Isn't it also essentially the position of the Dominicans of Avrille? And given that +Bp. Williamson wrote the fwd to his book, the position of His Excellency as well? I don't know about the SAJM or other "resistance" groups or priests. 

But however you want to classify his position it is definitely not a sedevacantist position. 

I agree that any version of R&R that says that the Church can promulgate poisonous rites or teachings is as much of a heresy as sedevacantism. 

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #39 on: September 23, 2022, 03:42:20 PM »

Yikes, what??! This is not and has not ever been a Catholic principle at all. The pope is the Vicar of Christ! :facepalm:
Christ is the head of the Church, the pope is His vicar. When the pope goes bad, we are still first under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man, in this case, the pope. This is the most basic, necessary and highest of all the principles in the Church, one everyone should have learned as a young child.

But feel free to correct me, please tell us Yeti, how do the public mortal sins of the pope (heresy, apostacy, etc.) or imposter if that makes a difference, infringe, affect or in any way prohibit YOU from living a good Catholic life?

I don't expect you will answer, but maybe at least you might think about it for a minute.