Author Topic: Sermon 5 Popes present Sunday April 27, 2014 by Fr Chazal (Read 1923 times)

2Vermont · « **Reply #10 on:** May 02, 2014, 02:52:25 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: s2srea
Mithrandylan, thanks for your honest response. A simple reply I would have is that ABL did exactly, what you say above, he couldn't do. Sedevecantism is simply not necessary- never will be, and never can be. You make it seem as if it is. You're not saying it, outright, because you know better, but it seems that you do say so indirectly ("I am no longer convinced.. that remaining in the R&R camp has no impact on one's faith" - what does that mean?), and that's dangerous. And that is one of the pitfalls of Sedevecantism, in my opinion.

You can could not ever ever dissuade me from believing that needing to make some sort of declaration, or opinion, on the status of the office of the man sitting in the Chair of St. Peter, is necessary in any way for salvation. Because if you did, you would be wrong and a heretic. But as I say above, it seems like you're doing so indirectly, intentionally or not. This is just my impression, and I'm sure you would clarify.

Wanna be a sede? Have at it. Keep it to yourself. You are just as prone to error as I am. Why don't we focus on maintaining the Faith we do have? Its not bogus "tradcuмenism". Its what this movement needs. Some real Charity. And I am at fault for not maintaining the needed charity more than anyone else (you've all seen it).

Archbishop Lefebvre did not categorically reject sedevacantism, though. The holy Archbishop was consistently and constantly evaluating his position to the crisis. He also (and very publicly) doubted the papacies of the new popes. He also very much did his best to keep traditional Catholics cohesive, something which could only be achieved by a bi-partisanship of sorts-- something which I neither say is a good thing or a bad thing, it has it's pros and cons.

It's not necessary for salvation, and I'm not saying that (and I think you know I'm not saying that, and you probably aren't saying that I am saying that). It is, however, conducive to salvation to have an orthodox understanding of the nature of the faith and the Church. It certainly isn't an aid to salvation to have a theology which undermines the Church as an institution, which is what the SSPX employs now, and the Resistance to boot.

That special verb that gets used so often... "declare." What do you think that means? How is it different than "declaring" that the New Mass is evil or that Vatican II must be rejected? How is it that one cannot say a heretic is not the pope, but one can say the pope's mass is not a Catholic mass, or that the pope's faith is not the Catholic faith?

The absurdity and incoherence of that idea will MAKE people sedevacantists. Not keep them from being so. It takes a very special and brainwashed person to think that this insistent sedeplenist position is true.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. But neither am I going to just leave the issue alone so long as you and other R&R Catholics want to debate it.

I know some folks don't wish to speculate, but I would bet a lot of money that ABL would be leaning even further towards (if not choosing) SV after these canonizations if they had happened in his time.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** May 02, 2014, 03:15:23 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: s2srea
Mithrandylan, thanks for your honest response. A simple reply I would have is that ABL did exactly, what you say above, he couldn't do. Sedevecantism is simply not necessary- never will be, and never can be. You make it seem as if it is. You're not saying it, outright, because you know better, but it seems that you do say so indirectly ("I am no longer convinced.. that remaining in the R&R camp has no impact on one's faith" - what does that mean?), and that's dangerous. And that is one of the pitfalls of Sedevecantism, in my opinion.

You can could not ever ever dissuade me from believing that needing to make some sort of declaration, or opinion, on the status of the office of the man sitting in the Chair of St. Peter, is necessary in any way for salvation. Because if you did, you would be wrong and a heretic. But as I say above, it seems like you're doing so indirectly, intentionally or not. This is just my impression, and I'm sure you would clarify.

Wanna be a sede? Have at it. Keep it to yourself. You are just as prone to error as I am. Why don't we focus on maintaining the Faith we do have? Its not bogus "tradcuмenism". Its what this movement needs. Some real Charity. And I am at fault for not maintaining the needed charity more than anyone else (you've all seen it).

Archbishop Lefebvre did not categorically reject sedevacantism, though. The holy Archbishop was consistently and constantly evaluating his position to the crisis. He also (and very publicly) doubted the papacies of the new popes. He also very much did his best to keep traditional Catholics cohesive, something which could only be achieved by a bi-partisanship of sorts-- something which I neither say is a good thing or a bad thing, it has it's pros and cons.

It's not necessary for salvation, and I'm not saying that (and I think you know I'm not saying that, and you probably aren't saying that I am saying that). It is, however, conducive to salvation to have an orthodox understanding of the nature of the faith and the Church. It certainly isn't an aid to salvation to have a theology which undermines the Church as an institution, which is what the SSPX employs now, and the Resistance to boot.

That special verb that gets used so often... "declare." What do you think that means? How is it different than "declaring" that the New Mass is evil or that Vatican II must be rejected? How is it that one cannot say a heretic is not the pope, but one can say the pope's mass is not a Catholic mass, or that the pope's faith is not the Catholic faith?

The absurdity and incoherence of that idea will MAKE people sedevacantists. Not keep them from being so. It takes a very special and brainwashed person to think that this insistent sedeplenist position is true.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. But neither am I going to just leave the issue alone so long as you and other R&R Catholics want to debate it.

I know some folks don't wish to speculate, but I would bet a lot of money that ABL would be leaning even further towards (if not choosing) SV after these canonizations if they had happened in his time.

Here he says the contrary:

http://stas.org/en/media/video/dvd/sermons-archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-english-2711

Transcription:

Archbishop Lefebvre:

"You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.

"And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.

"We are the Catholic Church.

"I don't say that.

"I don't accept that.

"That is schism.

"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?

"Where?

"Where is the authority of the Church?

"Where is our leader in the Church?

"We can't know where we are going.

"If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.

"We must pray for this pope.

"But don't say that he is not the pope."

There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.

2Vermont · « **Reply #12 on:** May 02, 2014, 03:20:06 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: s2srea
Mithrandylan, thanks for your honest response. A simple reply I would have is that ABL did exactly, what you say above, he couldn't do. Sedevecantism is simply not necessary- never will be, and never can be. You make it seem as if it is. You're not saying it, outright, because you know better, but it seems that you do say so indirectly ("I am no longer convinced.. that remaining in the R&R camp has no impact on one's faith" - what does that mean?), and that's dangerous. And that is one of the pitfalls of Sedevecantism, in my opinion.

You can could not ever ever dissuade me from believing that needing to make some sort of declaration, or opinion, on the status of the office of the man sitting in the Chair of St. Peter, is necessary in any way for salvation. Because if you did, you would be wrong and a heretic. But as I say above, it seems like you're doing so indirectly, intentionally or not. This is just my impression, and I'm sure you would clarify.

Wanna be a sede? Have at it. Keep it to yourself. You are just as prone to error as I am. Why don't we focus on maintaining the Faith we do have? Its not bogus "tradcuмenism". Its what this movement needs. Some real Charity. And I am at fault for not maintaining the needed charity more than anyone else (you've all seen it).

Archbishop Lefebvre did not categorically reject sedevacantism, though. The holy Archbishop was consistently and constantly evaluating his position to the crisis. He also (and very publicly) doubted the papacies of the new popes. He also very much did his best to keep traditional Catholics cohesive, something which could only be achieved by a bi-partisanship of sorts-- something which I neither say is a good thing or a bad thing, it has it's pros and cons.

It's not necessary for salvation, and I'm not saying that (and I think you know I'm not saying that, and you probably aren't saying that I am saying that). It is, however, conducive to salvation to have an orthodox understanding of the nature of the faith and the Church. It certainly isn't an aid to salvation to have a theology which undermines the Church as an institution, which is what the SSPX employs now, and the Resistance to boot.

That special verb that gets used so often... "declare." What do you think that means? How is it different than "declaring" that the New Mass is evil or that Vatican II must be rejected? How is it that one cannot say a heretic is not the pope, but one can say the pope's mass is not a Catholic mass, or that the pope's faith is not the Catholic faith?

The absurdity and incoherence of that idea will MAKE people sedevacantists. Not keep them from being so. It takes a very special and brainwashed person to think that this insistent sedeplenist position is true.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. But neither am I going to just leave the issue alone so long as you and other R&R Catholics want to debate it.

I know some folks don't wish to speculate, but I would bet a lot of money that ABL would be leaning even further towards (if not choosing) SV after these canonizations if they had happened in his time.

Here he says the contrary:

http://stas.org/en/media/video/dvd/sermons-archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-english-2711

Transcription:

Archbishop Lefebvre:

"You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.

"And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.

"We are the Catholic Church.

"I don't say that.

"I don't accept that.

"That is schism.

"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?

"Where?

"Where is the authority of the Church?

"Where is our leader in the Church?

"We can't know where we are going.

"If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.

"We must pray for this pope.

"But don't say that he is not the pope."

There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.

Schism assumes a true pope. I still say that if ABL witnessed the goings on now and the infallible canonizations of JPII and John XXIII he would lean SV at the very least.

s2srea · « **Reply #13 on:** May 02, 2014, 03:40:16 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Archbishop Lefebvre did not categorically reject sedevacantism, though. The holy Archbishop was consistently and constantly evaluating his position to the crisis. He also (and very publicly) doubted the papacies of the new popes. He also very much did his best to keep traditional Catholics cohesive, something which could only be achieved by a bi-partisanship of sorts-- something which I neither say is a good thing or a bad thing, it has it's pros and cons.

I agree that he did not categorically reject it (I have read the quotes as well, and I am not categorically rejecting it either), but if there was a line between sedevecantism and 'not', he was consistently closer to the not side. And to argue Benedict or Francis are somehow worse that Paul VI or JPII is baloney, IMO. They fundamentally the same. So if he questioned it, okay. I do as well. But I am not a theologian, like ABL was; nor do I believe anyone comes close to him in terms of experience and wisdom as a prince of the Church. What's more, we know that his instructions to his priests before his death: keep the Faith- at all costs; treasure the irregular canonical status in place, for protection from the authorities (<his recognition); etc. I've never seen it said anywhere that part of that instruction was to go about making determinations as to the status of the papacy. No, he didn't condemn sedes for being sedes in the SSPX, but its not like he encouraged it either.

Quote

It's not necessary for salvation, and I'm not saying that (and I think you know I'm not saying that, and you probably aren't saying that I am saying that). It is, however, conducive to salvation to have an orthodox understanding of the nature of the faith and the Church. It certainly isn't an aid to salvation to have a theology which undermines the Church as an institution, which is what the SSPX employs now, and the Resistance to boot.

That special verb that gets used so often... "declare." What do you think that means? How is it different than "declaring" that the New Mass is evil or that Vatican II must be rejected? How is it that one cannot say a heretic is not the pope, but one can say the pope's mass is not a Catholic mass, or that the pope's faith is not the Catholic faith?

I don't know. All I know is that I wont follow what's not Catholic, like you. You feel compelled to answer the question. I am content with simply keeping the Faith. The explanation benefits no one, really. And as I've said before, there is an inherent danger in where sedevecantism may lead, a la Gery Matatics.

Quote

The absurdity and incoherence of that idea will MAKE people sedevacantists. Not keep them from being so. It takes a very special and brainwashed person to think that this insistent sedeplenist position is true.

I'm not a sedeplentist, per se. I'm simply not making a judgement, one way or another.

Quote

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. But neither am I going to just leave the issue alone so long as you and other R&R Catholics want to debate it.

I'm also not trying to give you a hard time, or argue for the sake of argument. What I'm trying to say is there is no debate, as far as I'm concerned. You hold the Faith as much as I do. Why bother about things which will be settled by God (through His Church). Its not like either of us will be cleaning up this mess, apart from living Catholic lives- and we can do with with either opinion, really.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #14 on:** May 02, 2014, 04:21:33 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: s2srea
Quote from: TKGS
Yet doesn't Fr. Chazal insist that they are fully valid and true popes?

Because he has no authority to say otherwise? I think so, yes.

Where does he get the authority to reject the New Mass and VII?

When one rejects a heretical doctrine, he is judging an idea based on reason and Faith, which he is competent to do. However, when one rejects a man as pope, he is making a judgement on a person for which he has neither competence nor authority to do.