In the Sermon recorded 2ndMay2014 Fr Chazal likens the five conciliar Popes with the five wounds of Christ and also compares these Popes with some of the main players of the Revolution in France.

John XXIII .. Opens the Revolution
Paul XI ..... Enforces the Revolution
John Paul II . Applies the Revolution and puts it into Code
Benedict XVI . False Restoration - Co-opt the Opposition to the Revolution
Francis I .. Destruction of the Monarchy itself into a Presidential office.

The entirety of the these Five Popes were present last Sunday - the entirety of the Vatican II Revolution.

For them there is no Truth in Religous Matters other than there is NO TRUTH.

Pope Francis insists that all religions are good and true.


See the video of his sermon


Read more: http://resistance-australia.boards.net/thread/269/cf_FrChazal_tour_downunder#ixzz30Z9dRQLs

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.

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?  

At the point they break with Tradition, and, therefore place our faith in danger. Needing to determine the validity of one's office does not have an impact, one way or another, on our faith.

It's quite simple. The moment someone tells me to do something which is contrary to the Faith, I must reject it. To feel compelled to take it a step further and find out if they are what they say they are, to go out of my way to find out what the canons, theologians, et al., think is possible, when it has no real impact on my following of the Faith (as I hope I've just shown in the prior sentences is possible (and necessary) to do). His holding of his office has no bearing on my holding of my Faith then.

Bishop WIlliamson puts it much clearer, I think. (Emphasis mine):

The question is not of prime importance. If they have not been Popes, still the Catholic Faith and morals by which I must “work out my salvation in fear and trembling” (Phil. II, 12) have not changed one iota. And if they have been Popes, still I cannot obey them whenever they have departed from that Faith and those morals, because “we ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts, V, 29). However I believe in offering answers to some of the sedevacantists’ arguments, because there are sedevacantists who seem to wish to make the vacant See of Rome into a dogma which Catholics must believe. In my opinion it is no such thing. “In things doubtful, liberty” (Augustine).

What are your thoughts, my friend?

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?  

At the point they break with Tradition, and, therefore place our faith in danger. Needing to determine the validity of one's office does not have an impact, one way or another, on our faith.

It's quite simple. The moment someone tells me to do something which is contrary to the Faith, I must reject it. To feel compelled to take it a step further and find out if they are what they say they are, to go out of my way to find out what the canons, theologians, et al., think is possible, when it has no real impact on my following of the Faith (as I hope I've just shown in the prior sentences is possible (and necessary) to do). His holding of his office has no bearing on my holding of my Faith then.

Bishop WIlliamson puts it much clearer, I think. (Emphasis mine):

Quote from: E.C. CCCXLI

The question is not of prime importance. If they have not been Popes, still the Catholic Faith and morals by which I must “work out my salvation in fear and trembling” (Phil. II, 12) have not changed one iota. And if they have been Popes, still I cannot obey them whenever they have departed from that Faith and those morals, because “we ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts, V, 29). However I believe in offering answers to some of the sedevacantists’ arguments, because there are sedevacantists who seem to wish to make the vacant See of Rome into a dogma which Catholics must believe. In my opinion it is no such thing. “In things doubtful, liberty” (Augustine).

What are your thoughts, my friend?

My thoughts are concurrent with your first sentence.  Man's first duty is to follow the true religion, and it follows that he also has a duty to refuse a false religion.

The true religion is exercised and taught by the Catholic Church (to the exclusion of all other Churches), so it is also the onus of Christians to belong to it, and it therefore necessarily follows that they submit themselves to the authority of that same Church.

Anyone who has been following my posts knows that I have historically had a pretty laissez faire attitude toward one's approach to the crisis, so long as their traditionalism is manifested by their rejection of the N.O. program.  However, I am no longer convinced, at least at this very moment, that remaining in the R&R camp has no impact on one's faith.

If the pope of the Catholic Church "declares and defines... for the whole Church... by the authority of Jesus Christ, the apostles Peter and Paul and our own..." A, B, C or D, then he is speaking with the full power of his office, and defining something for the whole Church.

(This is distinct from the Church's infallibility in canonizations)

If this is not an infallible declaration, nothing is.  Arguments about process or some other mitigating factor reduces infallibility to the human phenomenon of "being right."  It is no longer the Holy Ghost which guides the Pope (or the Church); the Holy Ghost guides individuals in determining what teachings of the Church will lead them to Heaven and which will lead them to Hell.  

Beginning every query related to the traditional faith with the dual premise that sedevacantism is false and that the Church can teach any manner of error so long as it doesn't go contrary to what the SSPX believes about ecclesiology, authority and infallibility IS harmful to the faith.  There is no  principle or theological guide by which a R&R Catholic MUST accept ANY teaching of the Catholic faith if Francis can declare and define, for the whole Church, by the authority of Jesus Christ, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and HIS OWN A, B or C and not be protected by the Holy Ghost in doing so.  

An R&R Catholic cannot even argue that Catholics must attend the TLM (vs. the N.O.) or abide by the teachings of Pius X (or pick any other pope) without contradicting his own position.

I'd just like to point out that it was TKGS who went out of his way to bring up the question of the Sede position, not Fr. Chazal, and not I. I was merely responding to something which seems to be a center-point of many people's faith. A lens without which they seem unable to see.

Maybe they are just wondering if we can reliably call someone who constantly lies to you a liar?

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.

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.

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.