Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
General Discussion / Re: SSPX and the Conversion of Rome to Tradition
« Last post by DZ PLEASE on Today at 03:00:15 AM »
… which obviously has a significance for you that is radically if not diametrically opposed to that which it has for me.

When he was Cardinal Bergoglio of Buenos Aires he went out of his way to help the SSPx in ways that non of the European and North American bishops woud ever do.
Anonymous Posts Allowed / Re: Self-Baptism
« Last post by Anonymous on Today at 02:48:18 AM »
May wanna brush up on "distinctions without differences" just in case.

Nice when you decide not to say something, and someone else says it anyway.

Ty, really.
We do not self administer teh sacraments to ourselves. We receive the sacraments. In the case of baptism someone needs to pour the water and say the words with the intentionof doing what the Church intends.  
General Discussion / Re: SSPX and the Conversion of Rome to Tradition
« Last post by poche on Today at 02:44:01 AM »
Is  that what a pope is, tradition's "buddy"?

Regardless, if you can type something like that with a straight face, then God help you.
When he was Cardinal Bergoglio of Buenos Aires he went out of his way to help the SSPx in ways that non of the European and North American bishops woud ever do. 
Sunspots (one word) are phenomena exclusive to an electric light? So they do not occur to an electric light, is what that means.
Then you say the sun is an electric light, not a gaseous body (where is your evidence?) but it and all the luminaries are electric, you say.
Electric lights were invented just a hundred plus years ago. Was the sun not shining before that?
By "the luminaries" you mean what? Prophets? Soothsayers? Or for example, the moon?
The next non-sequitur, "Dark spots are common for lights," does not seem to follow.
Are you copying and pasting from some other source since you don't have your own ans
Obviously, you have some study to do.  The solar system and the lights in it are electric, not full of hot gas like NASA.  
You're at a loss? Surprise, surprise. No more fantasy and false premises to dole out today?
No more quotes from the apocryphal Book of Enoch?
If the sun's an electric light bulb, where is that in Scripture?
Did Moses understand electric light bulbs too? He wrote the Pentateuch. Enoch didn't.
Like I said, the Church never taught the shape of the earth.
The writings of the Doctors in regards to things not relating to the Faith has nothing to do with Church teaching.
Your quotes say nothing about the Church teaching regarding the shape of the earth.
There never has been and there never will be any such teaching.
It's not the business of the Church to teach things we can observe with our own 5 senses.
That is, unless you're a flat-earther who can't believe your eyes.
Read it and weep.
WRONG.  Moses taught earth is flat, early Church Fathers and notable Catholics who battled paganism in their day, saints, and scripture all teach that earth is flat. The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that Jerusalem is in the center of the flat earth and that there are no antipodes.  Get a clue! Exactly ZERO Catholics prior to the 1500's  taught earth is a hovering globe.  That's right! There is ZERO Catholic teaching for the magical sticky globe whose water clings to the outside.  Whether you can handle it or not, simple math and science and the Catholic Church prove the earth is flat.    
Read it and beep.
False ------------- how many false propositions have flat-earthers made? Who can count them all??
Straw man. Geocentrism does not incude a spinning globe, so that's false. Nor does it "jet" around the sun, so that's falsehood #3. Nor orbiting the galaxy -- falsehood #4;  and Big Bang is falsehood #5. Five false propositions in one post! Is that all you can do?
Oh, wait. I guess not. Now you have the globe earth barreling 4 different directions (falsehood #6) and 4 different speeds (falsehood #7).
Then you refer to the book of Enoch, which is not in the Bible, in other words, apocryphal. The sun and moon are not the same size, falsehood #8.
Only eight false statements all in one post? Come on, you can do much better than that.
The geocentrism model has NEVER included a globe.  NASA claims the globe JETS around the sun at 67,000 mph, obviously just ONE of their myths. Orbiting the galaxy is another NASA lie. NASA's Big Bang is another lie.  NASA's globe is a lie!  NASA's official line is earth travels 4 directions at 4 different speeds ALL AT THE SAME TIME, another lie.  I can name 100 Catholic books that are not scriptural, but that doesn't mean they aren't true. The sun and moon measure quite close in size, and certainly not the thousands of miles different in size NASA claims, nor the ridiculous distances.  As if my lil' ol' camera can picture some heavenly body 1,000,000 miles away.  SMH.  Keep em comin' Neil, its not over till the fat lady sings...and I can't hear you.   
"It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will"  St.Robert Bellarmine De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29.





By Father François Chazal mcspx, 2017



“Because of the errors and the heresies mentioned above and countless others, I turn away from the obedience of the false Pope...because of his errors and heresies, the same pseudo-Pope is heretical, deprived of his papacy and excommunicated by Canon Law itself without need of further sentence.” William of Ockham, Tractatus de Successivis.

In 2015, as I was arguing endlessly with him, a Japanese sedevacantist told me to write to his mentor. Here it is.
Reverend Father,
 One of my lost sheep is Japanese, totally away from the sacraments, not just because of sedevacantism, but because of the side-effects thereof, because he now questions the validity of the 1967 ordination of Fr. Nariai, our local priest, typical of a disciple of yours. In turn, Fr Nariai fell into sedevacantism, and returned the favor, because for conclavist Texas pope Sedes of the Lienard theory, you, Fr Cekada, are not a priest.
 Other sheep also got entangled in the concept that nothing is left valid in the Catholic Church; better stay at home with a rosary and an act of contrition.
 In this current and confused situation of the Church, sedevacantism only adds to the confusion and scattering of sheep, which fall off the cliff for one false reasoning, for the omission of one theological distinction, or for the extrapolation of one text over the others.
 So I will not lead my sheep on that stray path, nor its many antinomies, while it would have been so much safer to tell the faithful just to stay away from heretics and have nothing to do with the new Rome, as it becomes less and less comparable with the one it supplanted in Vatican II. I will just cover three blatant antinomies.
 For a sedevacantist, Fatima doesn’t fit, because the Fatima solution is at the hand of a Pope performing a request from Heaven. It does not suffice to say that Fatima is private revelation to brush it under the carpet of pious things, because this type of revelations is publicly approved by the Church (Lourdes and Fatima), are confirmed publicly by many miracles (Lourdes and Rue du Bac), especially Fatima with this outstanding public miracle before 70,000 witnesses, red aurora etc. These special revelations, are also tied to important public events like the advent of Freemasonry (Quito), the revolution of 1830 (Rue du Bac), the war of 1870 (Pontmain) and of course WWI, WWII, WWIII and Communism (Fatima). They are indeed related to dogmatic affairs, like the “que soy era la Immaculata Conceptiou” in 1858 and that includes ecclesiology (Quito, La Salette) and the Papacy. Note that the really private revelations of Dom Bosco confirm the role of a Roman Pontiff after some wobbly moments! In Fatima, the Papacy plays the greatest role, with the poor Sister Lucy trying to persuade John XXIII, Paul VI and John-Paul II in vain. Cardinal Ratzinger literally buried the message in 2000 and Francis mocked it in 2012. It’s the Novus Ordo who don’t want the truth of Fatima to go public all the while Fatima occurs amidst three chastisements of humanity. So, no, Reverend Father, there is nothing merely edifying about this.
 What is wonderful in Fatima is that it concerns the fate of nations, the fate of the Papacy and the dogma of the faith. When it is edifying, it is terribly so, like the vision of hell by the three children.
 Therefore I think you are throwing discredit on your position by this video on You Tube, downplaying and cutting off Fatima from ecclesiology. Fatima is rejected by the new church because it doesn’t fit their ecclesiology, isn’t it? It goes straight against “DignitatisHumanae” by requesting a Nation-State to be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, exposing our present day Popes as bad ones in the process, which of course, you don’t find interesting, since, in your ecclesiology there is no more shepherd while in fact the shepherd has been struck.
François Chazal+
Thankfully, Fr. Cekada replied:
 “Fr. Chazal’s ‘Open Letter’ on the True Trad site is simply incoherent, and contains no discernible theological argument. Fr. Chazal doesn’t like what I said about Fatima, and believes that his private understanding of Fatima somehow ‘refutes’ sedevacantism.
 The reason Fr. Chazal follows this course is that the ‘recognize and resist’ line he takes on the false Popes of Vatican II cannot be reconciled with the standard principles of traditional ecclesiology which teach that a catholic must submit in doctrine to the Roman Pontiff.
 To defend his complete rejection of these principles, Fr. Chazal must turn to his private interpretation of a private revelation, neither of which are a proper basis for a theological argument.
 I have repeatedly laid out the argument for sedevacantism, citing text after text from Catholic theologians to support my conclusion. Fr. Chazal, a typical product of the SSPX, offers nothing but hysterical yammering, covered by a veneer of smug piety.
 Let him go through my article ‘Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope’ or ‘Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism and Franken church’ and refute me point by point, citing theologians of equal stature to those I cited.
 Until then, those who read Fr. Chazal’s comments on sedevacantism should know that he is spouting nonsense.”
 Feel free to post this letter wherever you see fit.
 Fr. Anthony Cekada.
 Dear Father Cekada,
 Thank you for not replying to my argument, that Fatima was made public in front of at least 70,000 witnesses, was publicly approved by the Church as “A great sign from heaven” (Apoc. XII), and concerns the fate of nations at the hands of a POPE.
 So I went on ‘CathInfo’ & ‘ArchbishopLefebvreForums’ and tried to find the best Sede argument. It was hard because for the most of them, those replies veered off on side issues or details about “the errors of Russia.” The best I could find is that “yes, there is no Pope now, but when need be, one will pop and consecrate Russia”. My guess is that it is the CMRI position. But this means that Heaven requested something impossible to happen for 57 years (1958-2015); That Sister Lucy [Real (Fr. Gruner)/Fake (M.A. Horvat)] was wrong to beseech John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II.
 Fr Kramer says Mr. Putin is asking Pope Francis to consecrate. Has he in fact no one to turn to, to obtain the conversion of his country??  
 I won’t elaborate on the ludicrous belief that Pius XII sucessfully performed the consecration. (St Benedict Center). Satis.
 Interestingly my “hysterical yammering” resembles your booklet “Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope”: it is an induction. One accumulates particular facts to conclude inductively one truth: Our Lady uses a Pope (my yammering)/ there is no Pope (your booklet).
 An induction is false or sophistic, if it leaves out or fails to mention contrary particular facts. And it is especially sophistic if it leaves out a majority of facts.
 You contend, Reverend Father, that there are no “Theologians of equal stature to those I cited", nay, you challenge us to give us any, with great chutzpah, with this great theological self confidence which is so typical of dogmatic Sedevacantism...
 And many have been led to believe that indeed this is the case; that the vast majority, nay, the unanimity of theologians, canonists, experts and ecclesiologists are all arguing in favor of the immediate and ipso facto loss of office of a heretical Pope without declaratory sentence. In the light of the vast amount of proofs to the contrary, I concede to you our immense past negligence.
 So, as your booklet indicates, the question of automatic loss of office is the main axis of your efforts; but I will also use this opportunity to assess your doctrine of sedeprivationism and other shades of the sedevacantist argument. But if you have shifted, again, to another position, it is of no surprise to us. Yet do not blame us for refuting your previous systems because innocent minds are inoculating your past errors still.
On the question of the Magisterium, like Bishop Sanborn, you enclose everything into infallibility, ignoring the real extent of secondary objects of infallibility, that unfortunately, Vatican I did not have the time to define. If there is no link to constant teaching through time and place, there is no Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, pure and simple. The same goes with infallible laws, they are such only if they are 1) Universal 2) Binding 3) Dogmatic in character. Hence you cannot figure out what happened in the Pius XII - Bugnini new Holy Week.
Likewise, your “sic et non” sacramental theology has led many families away from the sacraments, here in Asia at least. The changing of your stance on the validity of the Thuc consecrations (that you used to hold in your funnily titled “Two bishops in every garage”) show that sacraments don’t get invalid that easily. As with the question of the Magisterium, others, especially Fr Calderon, have dealt with the issue better than I would. But I just want to point out that sedevacantists box themselves first in a conclusion, and discard, ignore and condemn everything that does not fit into the box. Hence the two main questions are these:
-1 Is sedevacantism an opinion, or an obligation?
-2 If it is an opinion, is it a correct one?

Being confident you will care to reply, and if you actually do, I ask you to stay on course, because all too often Sedevacantists veer off on other aspects instead of replying to the exact truth, the exact point, which is objected to them.
 I am happy to see that you want to go “point by point” and let’s see if you stick to the seven course menu...
I THEOLOGIANS (première entrée/ crudités)
II CANONS (deuxièmeentrée/ soupe/ première salade)
III POPES (premier plat de résistance)
IV ST THOMAS (deuxième plat de résistance)
V SCRIPTURE (troisième plat de résistance)
VI HISTORY (fromages et deuxième salade)
CONCLUSION (confiseries/ café/ pousse-café)
In all this let the good wines of Charity be served, matching perfectly the succession of dishes, as the Canticle says, “Ordinavit in me Caritatem”, because I hear otherwise that you have good qualities, especially a sense of humor, and your health does not look good these days. If you don't trust my arguments, trust at least that I pray for you and all other sedevacantists of every shades, and believe that only when God restores the Papacy to its splendor, shall we know who amongst you is or is not a false brethren.
@page { margin: 0.79in } p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: #00000a; line-height: 120%; text-align: left; orphans: 2; widows: 2 } p.western { font-size: 11pt } p.cjk { font-size: 11pt } a:link { color: #0000ff }
François Chazal+

A brief response to “Contra Cekadam”…
Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
Fr. Francois Chazal and Fr. Anthony Cekada
Fr. Francois Chazal is a priest who holds the recognize-and-resist position of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre: Recognize as valid the “Popes” since Vatican II while resisting anything they teach or legislate that appears to conflict with Church teaching or practice before Vatican II. At this point, Fr. Chazal is a part of the so-called “Marian Corps” or “Strict Observance” faction of the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X, which broke away from the “official” SSPX in response to Bp. Fellay’s conciliatory course with regard to the Vatican Modernists.
Unlike Sedevacantism, the recognize-and-resist position is extremely popular among traditionalists because it offers a best-of-both-worlds approach to the Vatican II Sect: You get to resist and refuse everything that is Modernist or otherwise objectionable, even to the point of having a de facto parallel church on the side; while at the same time you don’t have to deal with any of the pesky problems that arise from Sedevacantism. Plus, you get to retain anything from the Novus Ordo Church that you may need or desire in your personal life (validity of certain sacraments and annulments, certain canonized saints, permissibility to attend the “New Mass”, etc.).
The only problem with this rather convenient position is that it is not at all reconcilable with Catholic teaching on the Papacy, the Magisterium, and the Church, as we have demonstrated on this web site time and again, including in a direct response to Fr. Chazal a few years ago. This is ironic because it means that people like Fr. Chazal effectively believe that they can uphold and defend traditional Catholic teaching by denying the same — which makes about as much sense as trying to borrow one’s way out of debt.
Recently, Fr. Chazal came out with a lengthy monograph entitled Contra Cekadam, which is meant to rebut a number of arguments for Sedevacantism put forth by Fr. Anthony Cekada in his widely-circulated booklet Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope (2nd ed., 2006). The first part of Contra Cekadam has been published online in French here.
Responding to an inquiry by a third party, Fr. Cekada has provided a succinct rejoinder to Fr. Chazal, which we are happy to publish below. Readers interested in a more in-depth discussion of the topic are encouraged to check our topical page on Sedevacantism here.
Response to Contra Cekadam
by Fr. Anthony Cekada
Thanks for sending along the Chazal document. It is hardly, as Fr. Chazal seems to think, a point-by-point refutation of my argument in Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope.
Fr. Chazal’s Contra Cekadam doesn’t even state the argument of the “Cekadam” in question, still less refute it. Here, for the record, is the argument I made in the booklet:
  • Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.
  • Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
  • It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
  • Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.
  • Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.
  • Canonists and theologians also teach that a public heretic, by divine law, is incapable of being validly elected pope or obtaining papal authority.
  • Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. In 1559 Pope Paul IV decreed that the election of a heretic to the papacy would be invalid, and that the man elected would lack all authority.
  • Since the Church cannot defect, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we repeatedly encounter is that they proceed from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, publicly defected from the faith, and therefore do not objectively possess canonical authority.
If Fr. Chazal agrees with the statements in points 1 (the changes are evil) and 2 (and the Church, by Christ’s promise, cannot give evil/error), but he nevertheless still insists the Vatican II popes are true popes possessing authority from Christ, he maintains in effect that the Church of Christ has defected and that Christ’s promises are void.
As for the rest, Fr. Chazal simply:
  • recycles opinions on a heretical pope that were eventually abandoned after St. Robert Bellarmine,
  • attempts to apply criteria pertaining to ecclesiastical crimes when sedevacantists maintain that the public sin of heresy, not the crime, is what prevents a heretical pope from obtaining or retaining the papacy,
  • refloats the phony Adrian VI quote,
  • repeats the Paul-vs-Peter canard [see Appendix at end of post here] on fraternal correction for a moral fault, which does not solve the problem of the Church defecting wholesale by promulgating theological errors and evil universal laws,
  • in his treatment of Scripture as a “refutation” of sedevacantism, ignores St. Paul’s own assertion that he could in fact, “preach another Gospel,” for which even he himself would become “anathema.”
  • recycles supposed incidents from history to demonstrate that there have been heretic popes before, but which incidents (a) are part of the standard arguments of protestants who reject papal infallibility, and (b) have been repeatedly refuted by Catholic dogmatic theologians.
Fr. Chazal’s arguments on each of these points still does not get him out of the theological pickle that points 1 and 2 of my original argument put him in — the Chazalian equation that works out to:
  • Evil changes + true popes = defected Church.
Good luck getting out of that one, Father Chazal!
Anonymous Posts Allowed / Re: Self-Baptism
« Last post by DZ PLEASE on Today at 12:32:31 AM »
May wanna brush up on "distinctions without differences" just in case.

Nice when you decide not to say something, and someone else says it anyway.

Ty, really.
It appears that that would be baptism of desire.
Anonymous Posts Allowed / Re: Self-Baptism
« Last post by poche on Yesterday at 11:56:02 PM »
It is Church teaching that anyone (whether baptized, unbaptized, Christian, pagan, atheist, etc.) can validly baptize, so long as they proper words are used and the baptizer has the intention to do what the Church does.

Given this, is it possible to baptize oneself?
It appears that that would be baptism of desire. 
General Discussion / Re: SSPX and the Conversion of Rome to Tradition
« Last post by DZ PLEASE on Yesterday at 11:52:38 PM »
Is  that what a pope is, tradition's "buddy"?

Regardless, if you can type something like that with a straight face, then God help you.
Pope Francis is a friend of Catholic tradition.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by SMFPacks WYSIWYG Editor