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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19

Author Topic: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides  (Read 24093 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46918
  • Reputation: +27783/-5165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
« Reply #255 on: January 10, 2024, 11:07:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 10, 2024, 08:36:36 AM
    I agree with you, but there is a distinction to be made, that is, according to Fr. Chazal, Jorge Bergoglio is incapable of exercising the munus licitly because of his manifest heresy, but is capable nonetheless of exercising the munus validly.  This means that, according to Fr. Chazal, Jorge Bergoglio is capable, amongst other things, of defining as dogma a proposition of Divine Revelation and making it binding upon the Universal Church.

     

    Sure, but your question was whether had HAS the munus (where you made no such distinction).  Given that he has it validly, according to Fr. Chazal, one would say he has it.  Trying to reduce a secundum quid to a simpliciter is not very clean.

    I don't buy the valid/licit distinction outside of the Sacraments.  I think it was something he invented to distance himself from the sedeprivationists.
    Logged

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 802
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #256 on: January 10, 2024, 11:33:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I saw another article where Fr. Chazal goes more detail about his position.  I think I have it wrong in regards to the details.  Here is part of what Fr. Chazal wrote:

    "2) Guerard used the wrong distinction. I stated that in my booklet in the conclusion i wish you to read. Conciliar popes (Not just pope Francis, but others, and especially Benedict, and i want to be abundantly clear about that!) defect per se from office, and in this i totally concurr with Fr Kramer. Yet the Church remains a juridical and public society, who, even in normal times, takes time to catch up with heretical delinquents.

    "Too many people having not caught up with the heresies of Benedict, is the proof of a need to declare heresies."

    By "defect per se from office", it seems Fr. Chazal is saying that any valid acts posited by Jorge Bergoglio are due to supplied jurisdiction and not to habitual jurisdiction.  This seems to line up with what Angelus wrote.

    I may have no choice but to buy Fr. Chazal's "Contra Cekadam" do get the full details about his position.  :laugh1:

    Here is the link to the article:

    https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/02/franciswar-continues-to-heat-up.html
    Logged

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1197
    • Reputation: +507/-99
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #257 on: January 10, 2024, 11:53:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 10, 2024, 11:33:09 AM
    I saw another article where Fr. Chazal goes more detail about his position.  I think I have it wrong in regards to the details.  Here is part of what Fr. Chazal wrote:

    "2) Guerard used the wrong distinction. I stated that in my booklet in the conclusion i wish you to read. Conciliar popes (Not just pope Francis, but others, and especially Benedict, and i want to be abundantly clear about that!) defect per se from office, and in this i totally concurr with Fr Kramer. Yet the Church remains a juridical and public society, who, even in normal times, takes time to catch up with heretical delinquents.

    "Too many people having not caught up with the heresies of Benedict, is the proof of a need to declare heresies."

    By "defect per se from office", it seems Fr. Chazal is saying that any valid acts posited by Jorge Bergoglio are due to supplied jurisdiction and not to habitual jurisdiction.  This seems to line up with what Angelus wrote.

    I may have no choice but to buy Fr. Chazal's "Contra Cekadam" do get the full details about his position.  :laugh1:

    Here is the link to the article:

    https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/02/franciswar-continues-to-heat-up.html

    The way I read it, what you wrote about supplied/habitual “jurisdiction” doesn’t line up with Canon 2264 (and make sure you understand what is meant by “jurisdiction” in 2264 by carefully reading 2261). I read 2264/2261 as referring to Sacramental jurisdiction there, which the ipso facto heretic loses except in certain corner cases. 

    A popes legislative “acts” and his “appointments” are different from his sacramental “jurisdiction.”

    Although, I think the Canons are consistent in taking away those things in stages. First step (ipso facto), those things all become “illicit.” And as a practical matter, we as Catholics must avoid “legislation,” sacraments, or appointments carried out by one in a state of illegitimacy, even if, theoretically he and his currently dead acts MIGHT one day come to life. 

    Logged

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 802
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #258 on: January 10, 2024, 11:58:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on January 10, 2024, 11:53:25 AM
    The way I read it, what you wrote about supplied/habitual “jurisdiction” doesn’t line up with Canon 2264 (and make sure you understand what is meant by “jurisdiction” in 2264 by carefully reading 2261). I read 2264/2261 as referring to Sacramental jurisdiction there, which the ipso facto heretic loses except in certain corner cases.

    A popes legislative “acts” and his “appointments” are different from his sacramental “jurisdiction.”

    Although, I think the Canons are consistent in taking away those things in stages. First step (ipso facto), those things all become “illicit.” And as a practical matter, we as Catholics must avoid “legislation,” sacraments, or appointments carried out by one in a state of illegitimacy, even if, theoretically he and his currently dead acts MIGHT one day come to life.

    Thank you for your clarification.  I think I do need to read more closely the canons in question.

    What source substantiates the position that "currently dead acts MIGHT one day come to life"?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46918
    • Reputation: +27783/-5165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #259 on: January 10, 2024, 01:20:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 10, 2024, 11:33:09 AM
    "2) Guerard used the wrong distinction. I stated that in my booklet in the conclusion i wish you to read. Conciliar popes (Not just pope Francis, but others, and especially Benedict, and i want to be abundantly clear about that!) defect per se from office, and in this i totally concurr with Fr Kramer. Yet the Church remains a juridical and public society, who, even in normal times, takes time to catch up with heretical delinquents.

    Interesting.  I'll just have to disagree that Bishop Guerard "used the wrong distinction".  You can see the formal / material distinction already present in Bellarmine (in principle), and I'd have to take the word of the Church's top theologian before Vatican II over that of Father Chazal (with all due respect to Father).
    Logged

    Offline MiracleOfTheSun

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 817
    • Reputation: +352/-142
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #260 on: January 10, 2024, 03:13:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Nice little quote of Pius X.  Could use more of that these days...


    Logged

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1197
    • Reputation: +507/-99
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #261 on: January 10, 2024, 03:37:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 10, 2024, 11:58:04 AM
    Thank you for your clarification.  I think I do need to read more closely the canons in question.

    What source substantiates the position that "currently dead acts MIGHT one day come to life"?

    My point was that when an excommunicate is in a state of ipso facto excommunication, certain "acts" would be merely "illegitimate." But when that same excommunicate fails to respond to warnings and is either "declared" or "condemned," the same types of acts become not only "illegitimate" but completely "invalid."

    If they are "illegitimate," the acts did happen but they have no force while the state of illegitimacy continues. But if they are "invalid," they never happened.

    I'm saying that maybe those "illegitimate" acts could be granted "legitimacy," retroactively, if the competent authority decides to make it so. This might happen when a bishop or cardinal was appointed illegitimately while the Pope was in a state of illegitimacy (Canon 2265). But rather than re-do all of the appointments one by one, the competent authority would simply recognize that they are now all "legitimate" because the Pope has repented of his errors.

    Canon 2265 §2 seems to suggest something like this when it makes the distinctions that it makes.
    Logged

    Offline Catholic Knight

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 802
    • Reputation: +238/-82
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #262 on: January 13, 2024, 11:56:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 10, 2024, 07:09:55 AM
    Plenus Venter, in the video below, Fr. Chazal acknowledges that St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that manifest heresy results in ipso facto loss of office.  Start at about the 26 minutes mark.

    At about the 23 minutes mark, Fr. Chazal acknowledges that most authors hold that a true pope cannot be a formal heretic.  This is Opinion No. 1, which is the one that St. Robert Bellarmine truly held.  Now if Fr. Chazal held to these authors, then he would conclude that Jorge Bergoglio cannot be a true pope.  Here is the syllogism:

    A true pope cannot be a formal heretic.
    But Jorge Bergoglio is a formal heretic.
    Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio cannot be a true pope.

    From what I understand, Fr. Chazal currently holds Jorge Bergoglio to be a true pope, so he denies the major premise, which he admits is held by most authors.  Why, then, does he oppose most authors, including St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church?

    Now this video is a bit outdated (February 2015), so perhaps Fr. Chazal has changed his position since then. 



    I retract what I wrote above.  I also retract my public accusation against Fr. Francois Chazal of opposing the Magisterium of Vatican I and Pope Pius XII with his sedeimpoundist position.  I apologize for the confusion I have caused.  At the time, I thought that Fr. Chazal held Jorge Bergoglio as a true pope, but that is not the case based on e-mail conversation I had with him.  See the link below:

    Fr. Chazal on whether Jorge Bergoglio Is a True Pope

    The e-mail addresses have been removed.
    Logged

    Offline MiracleOfTheSun

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 817
    • Reputation: +352/-142
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #263 on: January 13, 2024, 12:39:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Fr. Chazal is emphatic that he does not accept Bergoglio as pope due to pertinacious heresy.  What is the essential distinction between Chazalism and The Thesis?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46918
    • Reputation: +27783/-5165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #264 on: January 13, 2024, 12:50:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: MiracleOfTheSun on January 13, 2024, 12:39:40 PM
    Fr. Chazal is emphatic that he does not accept Bergoglio as pope due to pertinacious heresy.  What is the essential distinction between Chazalism and The Thesis?

    I think it's more of an academic disagreement, where Father Chazal disagreed with the formal/material distinction.  End result of the two, however, is the same, that Jorge has the legal title, but doesn't really exercise papal authority.  I have no problem with this whatsoever, and don't like wasting time quibbling over academic disputes.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46918
    • Reputation: +27783/-5165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #265 on: January 13, 2024, 12:52:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 13, 2024, 11:56:11 AM
    At the time, I thought that Fr. Chazal held Jorge Bergoglio as a true pope, but that is not the case based on e-mail conversation I had with him.

    We had this debate before in the context of sedeprivationism, around the term "true pope".  But my argument then and my argument now is that you can't say yes or no simpliciter to the term "true pope".  He may be "true" in one respect, i.e. secundum quid but not true in another respect.  Now, if you hold to the St. Gallen mafia theory or the vitium consensus you may have different "distinctions", as Father Chazal stated, but the key question is whether Jorge has the authority as Vicar of Christ to teach the faithful.
    Logged

    Offline MiracleOfTheSun

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 817
    • Reputation: +352/-142
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #266 on: January 13, 2024, 12:56:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • If 'the end result of the two, however, is the same' then what is the crying all about?  While his book was titled 'Contra Cekadum' couldn't he have titled it 'Pro Sanbornum' or something?  Franco, et al, are clearly heretics so loss of office but they're still tied legally to the institution?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46918
    • Reputation: +27783/-5165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #267 on: January 13, 2024, 12:59:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: MiracleOfTheSun on January 13, 2024, 12:56:37 PM
    If 'the end result of the two, however, is the same' then what the hell is the crying all about?  While his book was titled 'Contra Cekadum' couldn't he have titled it 'Pro Sanbornum' or something?  Franco, et al, are clearly heretics so loss of office but they're still tied legally to the institution?

    It's emotional.  There's a stigma around sedevacantism and Father Chazal doesn't want to be associated with the term.  Shortly after he developed his position around "sedeimpoundism" (not a term he used, but one I use for convenience ... his was several syllables longer), many pointed out that it was very close to sedeprivationism, and so Father Chazal became defensive about it.

    While some of these terms (sedevacantist, sedeprivationist, sedeimpoundist, R&R, Bennyvacantist, etc.) are used for convenience, sometimes they're impediments from people recognizing that which they hold in common, feeling they need to belogn to one of these "camps".
    Logged

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1197
    • Reputation: +507/-99
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #268 on: January 13, 2024, 01:01:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Catholic Knight on January 13, 2024, 11:56:11 AM
    I retract what I wrote above.  I also retract my public accusation against Fr. Francois Chazal of opposing the Magisterium of Vatican I and Pope Pius XII with his sedeimpoundist position.  I apologize for the confusion I have caused.  At the time, I thought that Fr. Chazal held Jorge Bergoglio as a true pope, but that is not the case based on e-mail conversation I had with him.  See the link below:

    Fr. Chazal on whether Jorge Bergoglio Is a True Pope

    The e-mail addresses have been removed.

    CK, in your email exchange with Fr. Chazal, I think there is some imprecision in the language used on both sides when considered in the context of 1917 Canon Law. But Fr. Chazal said that his comments were "off the cuff," which I take to mean not precisely worded.

    I think Fr. Chazal's position is the same one I have been trying to convey, which is contained in Canons 188.4, 2314, and 2257-67 (and other Canons I'm sure).

    A heretic is "ipso facto excommunicated" (level 1) upon manifesting heresy publicly. And faithful Catholics are required to avoid submission to all heretics in religious matters (including ipso facto excommunicates who are excommunicated for heresy). There doesn't need to be an official "declaration" (level 2 excommunication) or "condemnation" (level 3 excommunication) for a faithful Catholic to be under the obligation to avoid the public heretic.

    The SSPX seems to think that faithful Catholics "cannot judge" a Pope's actions, which in the strict sense of that word ("judge") is true. But the kind of judgment being referred to in the Canon 1556 ("the First See is judge by no one") is in the section "on trials." The "judgement" in a "trial" would happen at the level 2 or level 3 of the excommunication process. There is no "trial" required for a faithful Catholic to recognize an "ipso facto heretic" as such. The faithful Catholic need only compare the erring proposition of the heretic to perennial Catholic teaching on the matter.

    At that point, the fact of the manifestation of heresy is in the external forum and this fact speaks for itself. And that public manifestation is enough for a faithful Catholic to have moral certainty (i.e., certainty in the world of action) that the heretic in question must be avoided.
    Logged

    Offline MiracleOfTheSun

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 817
    • Reputation: +352/-142
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sede - Zero upsides, nothing but downsides
    « Reply #269 on: January 13, 2024, 01:06:47 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • So Chazal and Vigano are squarely in the camp that Bergie is no pope.  Chazal, however, is/was claiming Vigano as a Resistance bishop ???  I love Fr. Chazal for blowing the lid off the 2012 SSPX events but come on, man.  Two leading Resisters don't believe the pope is the pope ???  Uh, that ain't the Resistance...
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19
    « previous next »