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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 45

Author Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?  (Read 39047 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46232
  • Reputation: +27196/-5032
  • Gender: Male
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #90 on: September 25, 2022, 02:53:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


    • Archbishop Lefebvre here says exactly what I claim that he said.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46232
    • Reputation: +27196/-5032
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #91 on: September 25, 2022, 02:55:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Gunter on September 25, 2022, 02:13:31 PM
    These discussions cut deep. Respect the process.

    You haven't been around here long enough.  For a few here, there is no "process", or, rather, this "process" has plodded along for years, and a few people here have psychological blocks that cause them to adhere to a variant of Old Catholicism.  They need to be called out and they need to be snapped out of it.  So, with all due respect, you haven't been around here long enough to be giving advice about how to approach this subject given which poster is on the other end.
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #92 on: September 25, 2022, 03:41:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 25, 2022, 02:53:27 PM


    Archbishop Lefebvre here says exactly what I claim that he said.

    Of course you are right. The Archbishop knew that if it could be proven that JPII was a pertinacious heretic, then he was not a true pope. For him there just wasn’t enough evidence (although at times there was and he accepted it). When Bergoglio came along, there was no disguising it, no serious person can possibly admit that he’s not a pertinacious and notorious heretic. So what did the R&Rers do? They didn’t just move the goal posts, they changed the common and accepted teaching. Out from nowhere comes team Siscoe and Salza with the ludicrous idea that somehow Saint Robert Bellarmine supported the discarded positions of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas.
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Gunter

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 308
    • Reputation: +128/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #93 on: September 25, 2022, 05:13:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 25, 2022, 02:55:39 PM
    You haven't been around here long enough.  For a few here, there is no "process", or, rather, this "process" has plodded along for years, and a few people here have psychological blocks that cause them to adhere to a variant of Old Catholicism.  They need to be called out and they need to be snapped out of it.  So, with all due respect, you haven't been around here long enough to be giving advice about how to approach this subject given which poster is on the other end.
    I get it. That sounds like how I would handle me with respect to tenor.  
    Logged

    Offline DustyActual

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 136
    • Reputation: +95/-3
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #94 on: September 25, 2022, 09:14:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 25, 2022, 01:52:32 PM
    Meg, you lie and slander me.  I have repeatedly cited Archbishop Lefebvre and Father Chazal.  You on the other hand just say this without any evidence whatseover because you don't like the thought that they might not support your Old Catholicism.

    I have posted the audio of a speech given by Archbishop Lefebvre and transcribed it.  I have posted an hour-long explanation by Father Chazal about his position, and took quotations directly from it.  I have posted numerous quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre.  And they say exactly what I posted above.

    You have never once refuted a single line of it, but you hurl your slanderous nonsense at me about dishonesty and getting away with it

    Then, by all means, Meg, don't let me get away with it.  Refute all of the evidence I have cited to back up my statements.

    And I am not going to let you get away with these garbage comments.
    Thank you ladislaus for explaining to me what Fr. Chazal's position is. Can you post the link to Fr. Chazal's explanation of his position?
    Logged
    Go to Jesus through Our Lady.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46232
    • Reputation: +27196/-5032
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #95 on: September 25, 2022, 09:55:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Here's where Father Chazal first articulated his position:





    1) agrees with SVs that Bergoglio (presumably his predecessors as well) is a manifest heretic, without doubt
    2) says that on account of heresy, they are "impounded" due to being vitandus ... "to be avoided"
    3) as a result, they have no authority, and are in a state where they are awaiting form delcaration of loss of office by the Church

    Early on, he actually mentions the crucial distinction also made by sedeprivationists, that God confers the authority directly, but that the Church designates the man to hold the office.

    This differs from classic R&R (and actually does most closely reflect the position of Archbishop Lefebvre) in that he states these men lack all authority, whereas classic R&R holds that they do have authority, but can be disobeyed on a case-by-case basis.  He states that they must be categorically ignored and that they have no authority whatsoever.  So, for instance, he cites the case of Padre Pio (where he presumably agrees that he was a saint), but that he rejects the canonization of Padre Pio, not accepting him as "St." formally, because not even the "correct" actions or teachings of the Concilair Popes are acceptable.  Father Chazal, therefore, doesn't have the problem of needing to accept St. Montini or St. Wojtyla either.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46232
    • Reputation: +27196/-5032
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #96 on: September 25, 2022, 10:04:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • To be noted, in the 4th Part, Father Chazal actually mis-defines sedeprivationism.  He wrongly identifies this with Father Cekada's revised stance that the papal claimants were ineligible to become popes in the first place, rather than that they fell from the papacy after election.

    Father does make some factual errors in characterizing the various SV positions, and that's one of the reasons why he inadverently stumbled into basically the same position that sedeprivationists REALLY hold.

    Another quick example of the mistake is that he conflates the Dimond Brothers with "St. Benedict Center".
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46232
    • Reputation: +27196/-5032
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #97 on: September 25, 2022, 10:08:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Father Chazal at one point said:
    Quote
    I really don't care if they call me a sedevacantist if I hold this principle.

    I respect that a lot, that he does't care about the "terms" or "words".  But then later he seemed to have recoiled at the thought of being identified as a sedeprivationist.  And to this day, I'm not sure if he persisted in his mis-identification of sedeprivationism as he did in the 4th video.

    I should probably read his Contra Cekadam to find out.  I have requested that those who assert that his position is different from sedeprivationism to please articulate the differences, but I have not seen anything substantial offered.

    Despite the fact that Father Cekada remained friends with Bishop Sanborn, I do not get the impression that Father Cekada ever embraced sedeprivationism.  He continued mostly to be aligned with Bishop Dolan, and I think that Bishop Dolan had recently denounced sedeprivationism as "savoring of heresy".  It's clear that he mis-applied (and slightly mis-spelled) sedeprivationism.
    Logged

    Offline MiracleOfTheSun

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 769
    • Reputation: +335/-140
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #98 on: September 25, 2022, 10:27:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Meg on September 25, 2022, 01:25:07 PM
    You seem to believe that any ol' reason for an interregnum is just fine, and that laymen can make up their own reasons for it, irrespective of the hierarchy.

    They have supplied jurisdiction, not ordinary jurisdiction. They are available for anyone who seeks the sacraments, and wants to keep to Tradition. Sedevacantists, however, (some of them) have a mission to force their views on any non-sede trad who disagrees with them. Do you see the difference?
    Outside of basic interregnums, the Catholic Church has existed w/out a pontiff on several different occasions.  Not sure about "any ol' reason for an interregnum" being cited here.  There is historical precedent, apostates cannot be pope and the Church cannot defect.  

    For the SSPX to claim they have supplied jurisdiction means they acknowledge there's been a complete breakdown in Church Doctrine, priesthood, etc.  But the Catholic Church cannot defect.  And none of the groups claiming it - SSPX, Resistance, Sedes - are even recognized by the pope or the Catholic Church. 

    Surely submission to the pontiff includes more than hanging a photo in the vestibule? 
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11317
    • Reputation: +6288/-1087
    • Gender: Female
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #99 on: September 26, 2022, 06:51:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 25, 2022, 10:08:29 PM
    Father Chazal at one point said:
    I respect that a lot, that he does't care about the "terms" or "words".  But then later he seemed to have recoiled at the thought of being identified as a sedeprivationist.  And to this day, I'm not sure if he persisted in his mis-identification of sedeprivationism as he did in the 4th video.

    I should probably read his Contra Cekadam to find out.  I have requested that those who assert that his position is different from sedeprivationism to please articulate the differences, but I have not seen anything substantial offered.

    Despite the fact that Father Cekada remained friends with Bishop Sanborn, I do not get the impression that Father Cekada ever embraced sedeprivationism.  He continued mostly to be aligned with Bishop Dolan, and I think that Bishop Dolan had recently denounced sedeprivationism as "savoring of heresy".  It's clear that he mis-applied (and slightly mis-spelled) sedeprivationism.
    So, I don't get it.  He doesn't care if he's called a sedevacantist but he does care if he's called a sedeprivationist? 

    Father Cekada never embraced sedeprivationism; however, he also never denounced it.  To this day, I believe that if Father Cekada were still alive, Bishop Dolan would not have denounced it either. Personally, I can't get on board with it, but I don't believe it to be heresy either. 
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46232
    • Reputation: +27196/-5032
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #100 on: September 26, 2022, 07:32:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on September 26, 2022, 06:51:57 AM
    So, I don't get it.  He doesn't care if he's called a sedevacantist but he does care if he's called a sedeprivationist?

    Father Cekada never embraced sedeprivationism; however, he also never denounced it.  To this day, I believe that if Father Cekada were still alive, Bishop Dolan would not have denounced it either. Personally, I can't get on board with it, but I don't believe it to be heresy either.

    I don't actually know how much Father himself objects to being called a "sedeprivationist" ... thus I need to read his book.  Mostly I've heard these protests from various R&R, and not directly from him.

    Thanks for the clarification on Father Cekada.  Of course, Father Chazal incorrectly defined the term "sedeprivationist" in applying it to Father Cekada's modified SV position.  Father Cekada did at one point shift from saying that the V2 claimants had fallen from the papacy to holding that they were ineligible to become popes right out of the gate, and Father Chazal incorrectly called that sedeprivationism.

    As I said, when I have some time, I'll read Father Chazal's book.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11317
    • Reputation: +6288/-1087
    • Gender: Female
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #101 on: September 26, 2022, 07:35:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 26, 2022, 07:32:25 AM
    I don't actually know how much Father himself objects to being called a "sedeprivationist" ... thus I need to read his book.  Mostly I've heard these protests from various R&R, and not directly from him.

    Thanks for the clarification on Father Cekada.  Of course, Father Chazal incorrectly defined the term "sedeprivationist" in applying it to Father Cekada's modified SV position.  Father Cekada did at one point shift from saying that the V2 claimants had fallen from the papacy to holding that they were ineligible to become popes right out of the gate, and Father Chazal incorrectly called that sedeprivationism.

    As I said, when I have some time, I'll read Father Chazal's book.
    Did he believe this for all of them?  I didn't think so. I thought this was his position for Bergoglio.
    Logged

    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 913
    • Reputation: +787/-117
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #102 on: September 26, 2022, 08:14:17 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 25, 2022, 09:55:43 PM

    This differs from classic R&R (and actually does most closely reflect the position of Archbishop Lefebvre) in that he states these men lack all authority, whereas classic R&R holds that they do have authority, but can be disobeyed on a case-by-case basis.  He states that they must be categorically ignored and that they have no authority whatsoever.

    This is the kind of defining of terms I asked you for at the beginning of this thread, when you replied:

    Quote from: Ladislaus on September 23, 2022, 08:01:03 AM

    This is not my glossary, and these terms are well understood here on the forum.  Do some searches if you don't understand the terms.

    I understand the terms, but I am also well aware that not all Trads understand them or would define them the same way.  Your inclusion in your definition of "classic R&R" as holding that they can be disobeyed on a case-by-case basis is something that needed to be defined so everyone is on the same page in the discussion.  Because, sorry, not all Trads would define it / view it the same way. 

    Quote from: Ladislaus on September 25, 2022, 10:04:37 PM

    To be noted, in the 4th Part, Father Chazal actually mis-defines sedeprivationism. 


    I thought these terms were understood by all, and there was no need for definitions.   ::)

    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46232
    • Reputation: +27196/-5032
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #103 on: September 26, 2022, 08:46:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: PAT317 on September 26, 2022, 08:14:17 AM
    This is the kind of defining of terms I asked you for at the beginning of this thread, when you replied:

    You labeled this as "Ladislaus' glossary" ... and that is what I took exception to, the implication that these are terms that I somehow coined or invented.

    Only thing that's somewhat unique to myself is the distinction between Father Chazal and classic R&R, but I have explained that repeatedly on this thread.  It is in fact, the entire point of the thread, pointing out that Father Chazal departs from the predominant R&R model, which hold that the popes have authority but may be disobeyed on case-by-case basis.  As for not all Traditional Catholics defining things this way, what I described is in fact that way R&R has been defined by its proponents for at least the past 20 years.  Archbishop Lefebvre's position was much more nuanced, as I have also pointed out on this thread, but among his followers, the subtleties have been lost, and the way it's repeatedly been defined is that we acknowledge the pope and his authority, but disobey various teaching/commands that are contrary to Tradition.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46232
    • Reputation: +27196/-5032
    • Gender: Male
    Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
    « Reply #104 on: September 26, 2022, 08:53:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: PAT317 on September 26, 2022, 08:14:17 AM
    This is the kind of defining of terms I asked you for at the beginning of this thread, when you replied:

    I understand the terms, but I am also well aware that not all Trads understand them or would define them the same way.  Your inclusion in your definition of "classic R&R" as holding that they can be disobeyed on a case-by-case basis is something that needed to be defined so everyone is on the same page in the discussion.  Because, sorry, not all Trads would define it / view it the same way. 


    I thought these terms were understood by all, and there was no need for definitions.  ::)

    As for the distinction between classic R&R and sedeimpoundism (Father Chazal), I have repeatedly explained that.

    And, yes, all Trads who are informed know what is meant by sedeprivationism.  Father Chazal was simply ignorant of the term.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 45
    « previous next »